In the case of Dawson Chemical Co. et al. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 1979, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting Section 271(g) of the Patent Act concerning patent infringement and importation rights for patented products produced by a process patented in the U.S.. The dispute arose when Dawson Chemical Company began importing propanil, an herbicide manufactured abroad using a process developed and patented by Rohm & Haas in America. Rohm & Haas sued for patent infringement arguing that even though their product was being made overseas, it still fell under their U.S.-held patent because it used their unique manufacturing process. The court ruled in favor of Rohm & Haas stating that imported goods created through a domestically-patented method are indeed subject to American patents laws regardless of where they were physically produced or who did so. This ruling established precedent regarding international trade and intellectual property rights within US borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Dawson Chemical Co. et al. v. Rohm & Haas Co., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 271(g) of the Patent Act was too broad and inconsistent with its legislative history and purpose. He contended that Congress intended to protect patent holders from unauthorized importation or sale of their patented inventions, not from any use whatsoever by a non-licensee in a foreign country where U.S patents have no legal force. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that using a patented invention as part of an industrial process abroad constitutes infringement if it results in a product imported into the United States, arguing this would unduly extend American patent law beyond national borders contrary to international norms and agreements.