The Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 1971 case revolved around a patent dispute between two companies: Canadian-based Brunette Machine Works and Swedish company Kockum Industries. The issue at hand was whether the U.S District Court had jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a patent infringement suit when the alleged infringement occurred outside of the United States but caused harm within it. The Supreme Court held that under Section 1400(b) of Title 28, which governs venue in patent cases, any corporation could be sued for patent infringement where it is incorporated or has an established place of business and is doing business; this includes foreign corporations with minimal contacts to the state where they are being sued as long as they are licensed to do business there and have designated an agent for service of process. Therefore, even though Kockum's alleged infringing activities took place outside US borders (in Canada), because their products were sold in Washington State causing economic injury there, they could be sued in Washington.

In the dissenting opinion for Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C § 1400(d), arguing that it should not be read to allow a foreign corporation to be sued in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction. He believed this interpretation was inconsistent with Congress' intent when drafting the statute and would lead to unfair results by allowing plaintiffs too much freedom in choosing where they could sue foreign corporations. Furthermore, he argued that such an expansive reading of § 1400(d) would undermine other venue provisions designed specifically for patent infringement cases which aim at limiting forum shopping and ensuring fairness between parties involved.