The United States Supreme Court case, United States Printing & Lithograph Company v. Griggs, Cooper & Company in 1928 revolved around a patent dispute. The U.S. Printing and Lithograph Co., the plaintiff, alleged that Griggs, Cooper & Co., the defendant had infringed on their patented process for making lithographic printing plates by using an acid resist made of albumen and bichromate of ammonia or potash. However, the court ruled in favor of Griggs, Cooper & Co., stating that they did not infringe upon any patents as their method was different from what was claimed in the plaintiff's patent description; instead of using albumen and bichromate to create a water-repellent surface (as described in U.S Printing’s patent), they used it to harden gelatin which then served as an acid resist during etching process.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Printing & Lithograph Company v. Griggs, Cooper & Company, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against U.S. Printing was flawed due to its reliance on an overly broad interpretation of unfair competition laws. He contended that these laws should not be used as a means of protecting businesses from all forms of competition but rather only those deemed unjust or deceptive in nature. In this case, he believed there was no evidence showing U.S. Printing had engaged in such practices when it copied and sold labels similar to those produced by Griggs, Cooper & Co., thus making the lawsuit baseless under existing law.