In the 1930 case of American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a patent dispute involving a method for preserving fresh fruit by injecting it with borax to prevent mold growth during transport and storage. The plaintiff, American Fruit Growers (AFG), had purchased exclusive rights to this patented process from its inventor and used it in their business operations; they then sued Brogdex Company for infringement when they began using a similar preservation technique without permission. The central issue was whether or not an unpatented natural product (the fruit) could become patentable simply through being treated with another patented process (the borax injection). The court ultimately sided with AFG, ruling that even though the raw fruits themselves were not eligible for patent protection, once they underwent treatment via the proprietary borax method, these "manufactured" fruits became distinct commercial products separate from their original natural state – thus falling under AFG's existing patents. This decision set important precedents regarding how far-reaching patent protections can be applied within industries reliant on processing natural goods.

The dissenting opinion in the case of American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., argued that the majority's decision to classify treated fruit as a manufactured good was incorrect and could have far-reaching implications for other industries. The dissent pointed out that the Borax treatment applied by American Fruit Growers did not fundamentally change the nature or function of the fruit, but merely preserved it in its natural state for longer periods. Therefore, they believed this process should be considered an agricultural practice rather than manufacturing. They also expressed concern about potential consequences of this ruling on trade regulations and tariffs if similar treatments were deemed manufacturing processes across different sectors.