In the 1897 case of Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Company, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies over railway brake systems. The plaintiff, Westinghouse Air Brake Company claimed that Boyden Power Brake Company had infringed on their patents for an automatic air brake system used in trains. The defendant argued that they did not infringe upon any valid claim of the plaintiff's patents and also counterclaimed that one of their own patents was being infringed by Westinghouse. The court ruled in favor of Boyden Power Brake Co., stating there was no infringement on part of them as they were using a different mechanism to achieve similar results which is permissible under patent law principles. Furthermore, it held that some claims made by Westinghouse were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty while others were too vague and indefinite thus failing to meet requirements set out by Patent Act. As for counterclaim raised by defendants about infringement on their patent rights, court found it baseless because even though both parties' devices performed same function i.e., braking system for trains but method employed was distinctively different hence no violation occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Company, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been granted because it lacked novelty and inventiveness. The justice believed that the device patented by Westinghouse was merely an improvement of existing technology rather than a new invention, as required by law to be eligible for a patent. He pointed out that all components of Westinghouse's device had already existed and were well-known among those skilled in mechanical arts at the time he applied for his patent. Furthermore, combining these elements in such a way to achieve greater efficiency did not constitute inventiveness but rather skill or knowledge within this field. Therefore, according to this view, granting a patent under these circumstances would extend monopoly privileges beyond what is intended by law and stifle competition and innovation.