In the case of Vandenburg v. Truscon Steel Company, 1922, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent for an invention could be invalidated due to prior use by another party. The plaintiff, Vandenburg, had patented a device used in concrete construction and sued Truscon Steel Company for infringement on this patent. However, Truscon argued that they had been using a similar device before Vandenburg's patent was granted and thus his claim should be nullified based on 'prior use'. The court ruled in favor of Vandenburg stating that even if there were previous uses of such devices it did not invalidate his specific design’s novelty or its eligibility for protection under law unless those earlier instances involved exactly the same design as described in his patent application. Therefore, despite evidence of prior usage by others including defendant itself (Truscon), since their designs weren't identical to plaintiff's patented one; he retained rights over it.

In the dissenting opinion for Vandeburgh v. Truscon Steel Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting picketing during labor disputes infringed upon workers' rights to free speech and assembly. The dissenting justices believed that peaceful picketing should be protected under the First Amendment as a form of expression and protest against unfair working conditions or wages. They also contended that such laws disproportionately affected workers by limiting their ability to publicly voice their grievances and negotiate better terms with employers. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse of these laws by corporations seeking to suppress worker protests through legal means rather than addressing underlying issues causing dissatisfaction among employees.