In the case of York Manufacturing Company v. Colley et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an ice-making machine held by York Manufacturing Company had been infringed upon by Colley and others. The lower courts ruled in favor of York, finding that there had indeed been infringement on their patented design. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was found that while certain elements of the machines were similar or identical between both parties' designs, these similarities did not constitute infringement as they were commonplace within this type of machinery and therefore could not be claimed under patent law. Furthermore, it was determined that any differences between the two designs were improvements made by Colley and his associates rather than direct copies from York's design. As such, no violation occurred according to Justice Holmes who delivered the opinion for a unanimous court decision.

The dissenting opinion in the case of York Manufacturing Company v. Colley et al., 1917, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against York was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which should have led to a reversal of the verdict. They contended that certain evidence presented by York was improperly excluded and other evidence admitted against them was irrelevant or prejudicial. Furthermore, they disagreed with how jury instructions were handled, arguing it may have confused jurors about key issues related to patent infringement claims at stake in this case. In their view, these procedural missteps could potentially undermine fairness and accuracy of legal proceedings not only for this particular dispute but also future patent litigation cases if left uncorrected.