In the case of Cochrane & Others v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patent for an invention could be enforced against someone who had used it without permission in another country. The plaintiffs argued that they held exclusive rights to their patented invention and should therefore be able to prevent others from using it without authorization. The defendants countered that since the patent only applied within the United States, they were not bound by its terms when operating abroad. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and found that patents are enforceable regardless of where they are used or sold as long as there is some connection between those activities and U.S.-based commerce or industry. This ruling established important precedent regarding international intellectual property law which continues to shape how companies protect their inventions today

In the case of Cochrane & Others v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of patent law. He argued that under existing laws, a foreign corporation could not be sued for infringement unless it had established itself as doing business within the United States or its territories. The Court had held otherwise and allowed suit against such corporations without any proof of their presence in this country; however, Justice Harlan maintained that allowing suits to proceed against foreign corporations absent evidence of their presence would lead to confusion and uncertainty with respect to international commerce and patents rights abroad. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had never intended for such suits to be brought by individuals who were not citizens or residents of the United States but instead sought only "to protect American inventors from infringements committed here." Thus, according to Justice Harlan's dissent, there was no legal basis upon which non-resident plaintiffs should have been able to bring suit against a foreign corporation for patent infringement when they did not even reside in this country themselves.