In the 1906 case of William W. Bierce, Limited v. Hutchins, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties between two parties involved in manufacturing processes. The plaintiff, William W. Bierce Ltd., claimed that they had exclusive rights to use certain patented inventions related to sugar refining technology under an agreement with the inventor Mr. Weston (who was deceased at this point). They argued that defendant Hutchins infringed upon these rights by using said patents without their permission or paying them any royalty fees. The court ruled in favor of Hutchins on grounds that he was not infringing upon any valid patent right held by Bierce Ltd., as per evidence presented during trial proceedings which showed that Mr.Weston's widow had sold all her interest in his patents to another party before entering into an agreement with Bierce Ltd.. Therefore, she did not have legal authority to grant them exclusive usage rights for those inventions. This decision emphasized importance of ensuring proper transfer and ownership of intellectual property assets before making business arrangements based on such assets.

In the dissenting opinion for William W. Bierce, Limited v. Hutchins (1906), Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Bierce was incorrect and inconsistent with established legal principles. He contended that the contract between Bierce and Hutchins was not void due to illegality as determined by the majority, but rather it should be considered valid because both parties had entered into it willingly and knowingly without any fraudulent intent or coercion involved. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of New York law regarding contracts involving liquor sales which they used as basis for their decision. According to him, this misinterpretation led them to an erroneous conclusion about its applicability in this case where alcohol sale wasn't illegal per se but only regulated under certain conditions which were met by both parties in their agreement.