In the Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 1943, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Universal Oil Products (UOP). The case revolved around a patent dispute where Globe Oil and Refining had accused UOP of infringing on its patent for a process to produce high-octane gasoline, which was crucial during World War II. However, the court found that Globe's patent was invalid because it did not meet novelty requirements - it lacked originality as similar processes were already known in the industry before their supposed invention date. Furthermore, they determined that even if valid, UOP would not have infringed upon this patent as their method differed significantly from what was described by Globe's claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a patent on grounds of non-invention was incorrect and inconsistent with precedent, as it failed to consider whether or not the patented process had any utility in industry or commerce. He contended that if a process has value and is used in trade, then it should be considered an invention regardless of its simplicity or complexity. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on hindsight bias when evaluating patents; just because something seems obvious after it has been discovered does not mean that it was obvious before its discovery.