In the 1891 case of Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Company, the U.S Supreme Court examined a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Van Stone, claimed that he had invented a new and useful improvement in turbine water-wheels for which he was granted a patent on February 24th, 1874. He alleged that Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Company infringed upon his patent by making and selling turbines embodying his invention without license or authority from him. The defendant argued that they did not infringe upon any valid claim of the plaintiff's patent because their design was based on an earlier French Patent issued to Girard in 1856 - thus challenging the novelty of Van Stone's invention. Upon reviewing both patents and hearing expert testimonies regarding similarities between them, it became clear to the court that there were substantial differences between Girard’s wheel as described in his specification and drawings and those made under Mr. Van Stone’s patents; hence concluding that no infringement occurred. This ruling reinforced principles around validity of claims within patents – specifically emphasizing importance of novelty (originality) when assessing potential infringements.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Company, the justice argued that there was a clear contractual agreement between both parties involved in this case. The defendant had agreed to purchase all of its required castings from the plaintiff's foundry and should be held accountable for breaching this contract when it decided to source these materials elsewhere without proper notice or justification. The dissenting justice believed that such an abrupt change in business dealings violated good faith principles inherent in any commercial relationship, especially given that the plaintiff had made significant investments based on their understanding of this exclusive arrangement with the defendant. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s decision not to hold Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Company liable for damages resulting from their breach of contract.