In the case of College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board et al., 1998, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have authority under Article I of the Constitution to abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court by private parties. The dispute arose when College Savings Bank (CSB), a New Jersey-based bank, sued Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board for patent infringement and false advertising. CSB argued that two federal statutes - Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act and Trademark Remedy Clarification Act - permitted their lawsuit against Florida Prepaid, which is an arm of the State of Florida. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that these acts could not validly abrogate states' sovereign immunity because they were enacted under Article I powers rather than Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment as required by precedent set in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996). Therefore, CSB’s claims were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion of College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, Justice Breyer argued that Congress had constitutional authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity in cases involving intellectual property rights under Article I of the Constitution. He contended that the majority's decision was inconsistent with precedent and undermined federal power to create uniform national standards for patents and copyrights. Furthermore, he believed that states should not be immune from suits brought by private parties alleging violations of federally protected patent rights as it would lead to a lack of accountability for states infringing upon these rights. The dissent also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on innovation due to this lack of protection against state infringement.