In the 1911 case of Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties between American inventor George W. Crozier and German manufacturing company Fried. Krupp AG (Krupp). The court ruled in favor of Krupp, upholding an earlier decision by the Circuit Court for Southern New York that dismissed Crozier's claims on grounds that he had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations under their agreement. Crozier invented a shell capable of penetrating armor plating which was patented in several countries including Germany where it was used by Krupp without paying any royalty fees to him as per their contract signed in 1894 due to non-fulfillment of certain conditions from his side such as not obtaining patents within specified time limits or failing to defend them against infringement suits. The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts' interpretation that these conditions were essential parts of their agreement and hence failure on part of Croizer led to termination of contract freeing Krupps from obligation towards payment.

In the dissenting opinion for Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to allow a foreign corporation to be sued in any U.S state where it does business was an overreach of jurisdictional authority and violated principles of international law. He contended that just because a company conducts business within a certain territory doesn't automatically subject it to legal proceedings there, especially when its principal place of business is located elsewhere. Furthermore, he believed this ruling could potentially strain diplomatic relations with other nations by imposing American laws on foreign entities without their consent or knowledge. In his view, such matters should be handled through treaties or other formal agreements between countries rather than being unilaterally decided by domestic courts.