The Ex Parte Automatic Switch Company of Baltimore City case in 1905 involved the Automatic Switch Company petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Morris, a district judge, to take jurisdiction and proceed with a suit that had been previously dismissed. The company argued that they were entitled to have their patent infringement case heard by the court. However, the Supreme Court denied their request stating that it did not possess authority under existing laws to issue such an order. It was held that only Congress could grant this power and since it hadn't done so, there was no legal basis for granting the petitioner's request. This decision reinforced judicial discretion over which cases are accepted or rejected within lower courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte Automatic Switch Company of Baltimore City argued that the court should not have dismissed the writ of mandamus. The justice believed that there was a clear right to relief, and it was an error for lower courts to refuse to issue a patent for an invention which had been approved by the Commissioner of Patents. He contended that if this decision were allowed to stand, it would create a dangerous precedent where judges could arbitrarily deny patents even when they met all legal requirements. This would undermine inventors' rights and potentially stifle innovation. Therefore, he dissented from the majority's decision dismissing Automatic Switch Company's petition.