In the case of Webster Electric Company v. Splitdorf Electrical Company, 1923, the US Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Webster Electric for an electrical device used in telephone systems was infringed upon by Splitdorf Electrical. The lower courts had ruled in favor of Webster Electric, finding that Splitdorf's product did indeed infringe on their patent rights. However, upon review at the Supreme Court level, it was determined that while there were similarities between the two devices and they served similar functions within telephone systems; these similarities were not enough to constitute infringement under patent law as defined during this period. Therefore, the court reversed previous rulings and found in favor of Splitdorf Electrical.

In the dissenting opinion for Webster Electric Company v. Splitdorf Electrical Company, Justice Brandeis argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. He contended that there was no clear evidence of a lack of novelty or non-obviousness in the invention, which are key requirements for patentability under U.S law. The majority's decision to invalidate based on these grounds was therefore unjustified according to him. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation and application of prior art references used against the validity of this patent. In his view, they did not teach or suggest all elements and aspects claimed by this particular invention as required by law to render it unpatentable due to anticipation or obviousness over them.