In the 1996 case Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., the U.S Supreme Court addressed issues related to patent infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. The court upheld that a product or process not literally infringing upon a patent could still be found guilty of infringement under this doctrine if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain an identical result as patented invention. However, they also clarified that application of this rule must be applied on an element-by-element basis rather than to invention as whole. Furthermore, they introduced concept of "prosecution history estoppel", which prevents a patentee from using doctrine of equivalents to claim elements similar to those deliberately left out during prosecution phase for obtaining patent approval.

In the dissenting opinion of the Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold and apply a doctrine known as "the doctrine of equivalents." This legal principle allows for patent infringement even if an accused product or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim but is substantially equivalent to it. She argued that this approach was too vague and subjective, leading to unpredictability in its application which could stifle innovation by creating uncertainty around what constitutes infringement. Furthermore, she believed that such decisions should be left up to Congress rather than being determined by courts on a case-by-case basis.