The U.S. Supreme Court case Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 1956, revolved around the issue of patent infringement and jurisdictional matters related to it. Transmirra Products Corporation sued Fourco Glass Company for infringing on its patents in a West Virginia court, despite being incorporated in New York and having its principal place of business there as well. The question before the court was whether under Section 1400(b) of Title 28 - which states that any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where they have committed acts of infringement - could "resides" be interpreted to mean not only a corporation's state of incorporation but also anywhere it does substantial business? The Supreme Court ruled against this broader interpretation, stating that for purposes of venue in patent cases, a domestic corporation “resides” only in its State of incorporation.

In the dissenting opinion for the Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., it was argued that a broader interpretation of Section 1400(b) should be adopted, which would allow corporations to be sued in any district where they are doing business, not just where they are incorporated or have their principal place of business. The dissenting justices believed that this more expansive view better reflected Congress's intent when drafting the statute and aligned with previous court decisions on similar matters. They also contended that limiting venue options could potentially hinder plaintiffs' ability to seek justice by forcing them to litigate in inconvenient or distant locations. Furthermore, they expressed concern about creating an uneven playing field between corporations and individuals regarding venue selection since individuals can generally be sued anywhere they can be found while corporations would enjoy greater protections under the majority's narrower interpretation.