In the case of Brown Chemical Company v. Meyer in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Brown Chemical Co. for an improved method of manufacturing medicinal compounds was valid and had been infringed upon by Meyer. The lower court ruled that while there were similarities between the two processes, they were not identical and thus did not constitute infringement on Brown's patent rights. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it upheld this decision stating that although both methods produced similar results, their process differed significantly enough so as to avoid infringing upon each other’s patents. Therefore, no violation occurred according to existing patent laws at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown Chemical Company v. Meyer, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors violated principles of interstate commerce. The dissenting justices believed that once goods had been transported across state lines and mixed with general mass of property within a state, they were no longer subject to federal regulation but fell under local jurisdiction instead. They contended that this interpretation would allow states to regulate or even prohibit trade in certain items, which could have significant implications for national economic policy and potentially disrupt interstate commerce. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding such laws as constitutional.