This case concerned three main issues in the context of patent infringement litigation: (1) who bears the burden of proving validity or invalidity of the patent; (2) what is required for an invention to be “useful” or “capable of industrial application”; and (3) what degree of similarity is needed for an accused product to infringe a patent. The Circuit Court of Massachusetts/United States decided that the plaintiff in a patent infringement suit bears the burden of proving the validity of its patent by establishing novelty and industrial application. In support of such proof, the fact that the patent was granted establishes a prima facie case of patent validity, but only “of a very slight nature”, according to the Court. The Court made clear that requirements for utility should not be too high. It considered “useful” anything that was not detrimental to society. An accused product, in the view of the Court, infringes a patent when it has substantially the same structure to pursue the same purpose.