In the Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 1945, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Universal Oil Products (UOP). The case revolved around a patent dispute where Root Refining Company had used a process patented by UOP to refine oil without obtaining permission or paying royalties. The lower court initially found that while Root did use the process, it was not liable as it believed that UOP's patent was invalid due to prior public use and sale more than two years before its application date - an argument known as "statutory bar". However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating there wasn't enough evidence to support claims of statutory bar since earlier uses of similar processes were experimental and not commercial in nature. Therefore, they upheld UOP's patent validity and concluded that Root Refining Company had indeed infringed on their rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a patent due to non-disclosure of prior use was incorrect and set a dangerous precedent for future cases. The justice believed that there were no clear guidelines or rules established by Congress regarding what constitutes "prior use" and how much detail about such usage must be disclosed when applying for a patent, thus making it unfair to penalize an applicant based on this ambiguity. Furthermore, they contended that if every inventor had to disclose all possible uses of their invention before obtaining a patent, it would discourage innovation as inventors might fear losing their rights over minor technicalities or oversights in disclosure.