The U.S. Supreme Court case Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States (1998) revolved around the issue of patent infringement and sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The College Savings Bank claimed that Florida Prepaid, a state-run organization, had infringed on its patent for a financing method to fund pre-paid college tuition programs. In response, Florida Prepaid invoked its sovereign immunity as a state entity under the Eleventh Amendment to dismiss the lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Florida Prepaid stating that Congress did not have authority under Article I of Constitution (which includes Patent Clause) to abrogate states' 11th amendment immunity from suits brought in federal courts by private parties; nor could it do so through Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment unless there was evidence showing widespread and persistent deprivation of constitutional rights along with lack of adequate remedies at law. This ruling reinforced states' sovereignty protections against lawsuits for monetary damages by private parties in federal court without their consent or valid congressional abrogation.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States, Justice Breyer argued that Congress had sufficient evidence to conclude that state infringement of patents constituted a significant problem warranting federal intervention. He believed there was enough proof showing states were infringing upon patent rights without providing adequate remedies in their courts, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Furthermore, he contended that the majority misinterpreted precedent regarding Congress' power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and failed to give proper deference to Congressional findings on this issue. In his view, by not allowing Congress to provide a remedy for patent holders against state entities through legislation like Patent Remedy Act would leave these individuals with no recourse when their constitutional rights are violated by states.