In the United States v. Harvey Steel Company case of 1912, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The U.S government sued Harvey Steel Company for infringing on its patent for armor-piercing projectiles used in naval warfare. The company argued that it had not violated any patents as they were using their own design which was different from the one patented by the government and thus, did not constitute infringement. The court ruled in favor of Harvey Steel Company stating that while there might be similarities between both designs, they were fundamentally different and hence didn't violate any existing patents held by the U.S Government. This ruling established an important precedent regarding patent law - just because two products perform similar functions or have some common features doesn't necessarily mean one is infringing upon another's patent; rather what matters is whether or not they use substantially identical means to achieve those results.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Harvey Steel Company, Justice Holmes argued that the government should not be allowed to reclaim land it had previously sold to a private entity simply because it later discovered valuable resources on that land. He believed this was an overreach of governmental power and violated property rights. Furthermore, he contended that when the government sells land, it does so with full knowledge of its potential value and therefore cannot claim ignorance as a reason for reclamation. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were handled by different courts, arguing for more uniformity in legal decisions regarding property rights disputes between private entities and the government.