The United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company case in 1894 revolved around a dispute over patent rights for certain firearms and ammunition. The U.S government had contracted the Berdan Firearms Manufacturing Company to produce these items, but later claimed that they were not obligated to pay royalties as they believed the patents were invalid due to prior use and lack of novelty. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the manufacturing company, stating that even if there was evidence suggesting possible prior use or lack of novelty, it wasn't substantial enough to invalidate the patents. Therefore, under their contract with Berdan Firearms Manufacturing Co., the U.S government was required to pay royalties for using these patented inventions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of patent law and international treaties. The dissent believed that a foreign inventor who had obtained patents for his invention in both his home country and the U.S., should not be penalized if he chose to manufacture his product abroad before manufacturing it domestically. They contended that this did not constitute abandonment or forfeiture of their U.S. patent rights, as suggested by the majority ruling, but rather an exercise of their right under international treaty provisions protecting intellectual property rights globally. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation regarding 'public use' clause within patent laws, arguing that production overseas does not equate public use within America which could invalidate a patent claim.