In B. B. Chemical Co. v. Ellis et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, upholding a lower court's decision that they were not infringing on the plaintiff's patent rights for a chemical compound used to kill cockroaches and other pests because their product was sufficiently different from what was claimed in the patent. The plaintiff, B.B Chemical Company, had argued that its patented formula - which included an insecticide mixed with flour and sugar - was being copied by Ellis' company who also produced an insect-killing powder using similar ingredients but with different proportions and additional substances like chocolate or cocoa as bait material instead of sugar or flour alone as in case of plaintiff’s product . However, both district court and supreme court found these differences significant enough to rule out any infringement claims made by BB Chemical Company.

In the dissenting opinion for B. B. Chemical Co. v. Ellis et al., Justice Frank Murphy disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that required out-of-state manufacturers to appoint an in-state agent who could be sued on their behalf, arguing it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution by placing undue burden on interstate commerce and discriminating against out-of-state businesses. He contended that this requirement was not necessary for ensuring due process rights because there were other ways states could ensure they had jurisdiction over these companies without imposing such burdensome requirements, like through long-arm statutes or consent-by-compliance laws which would allow them to sue these companies directly instead of going through an appointed agent.