The U.S. Supreme Court case Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Company v. Ewing in 1891 revolved around a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co., alleged that the defendant, Ewing, had infringed upon their patented sewing machine technology by manufacturing and selling similar machines without permission or license from them. The court held that while there were similarities between the two machines, they did not constitute infringement as the defendant's machine was based on an expired patent which was now part of public domain and could be freely used by anyone including Ewing himself for commercial purposes. Therefore, no violation of rights occurred according to law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Company v. Ewing argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for an automatic cut-off mechanism on sewing machines was incorrect. The dissent contended that this invention did not meet the criteria for novelty and non-obviousness required by patent law, as it merely combined existing elements in a manner obvious to any skilled mechanic or engineer. They believed that granting such patents would stifle competition and innovation, rather than promote them as intended by the Constitution's Patent Clause. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse of monopoly power granted through patents, which could lead to higher prices and reduced access for consumers without necessarily incentivizing meaningful technological advancement.