The U.S. Supreme Court case William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Company v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company et al., 1917, centered around a patent dispute between the two companies over marine turbine technology used in shipbuilding. The plaintiff, William Cramp & Sons, alleged that International Curtis Marine Turbine Co had infringed on their patent rights by using a similar design for turbines in their ships without permission or licensing agreement. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendant (International Curtis), stating that there was no infringement as the designs were not identical and differed significantly enough to be considered separate inventions under patent law standards at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Company v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that found in favor of International Curtis Marine Turbine Company. He argued that there was no infringement on any patent rights, as claimed by the plaintiff, because there were significant differences between their patented design and what was used by William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Company. The justice believed that these differences were enough to distinguish them from each other and thus should not be considered an infringement of patent rights. Furthermore, he contended that even if similarities existed, they did not amount to copying or stealing of ideas but rather represented common practices within the industry at large.