The U.S. Supreme Court case Hoffman v. Blaski, 1959, revolved around the issue of venue in patent infringement lawsuits. The respondents, Blaski and others, were Illinois residents who held patents for certain railway car constructions and had licensed these to a Texas corporation for manufacture and sale nationwide. They sued the petitioner, Hoffman (a judge), alleging that he was infringing on their patents by manufacturing similar products in Texas through his company based there. Hoffman sought to transfer the case from Illinois to Texas under Section 1404(a) of the Judicial Code which allows such transfers "for convenience." However, this request was denied by lower courts stating that they would not have jurisdiction over him if he were sued in Texas as per Section 1400(b) - a special venue statute applicable only to patent infringement actions. Upon appeal at Supreme Court level it was ruled that section 1404(a) does not apply when plaintiff's chosen forum is one where defendant could not be compelled into court against its will; hence affirming decision of lower courts denying transfer motion.

In the dissenting opinion for Hoffman v. Blaski, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was too restrictive and failed to consider modern realities of litigation. He believed that a more flexible approach should be adopted in determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. According to him, it is sufficient if the defendant had minimum contacts with the state where he is being sued such that maintaining a lawsuit would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. He also pointed out that technological advancements have made communication and transportation easier, thus reducing potential burdens on defendants who are required to defend themselves in another state. Furthermore, he emphasized that federal courts should strive towards achieving uniformity in patent cases rather than allowing individual states' laws dictate their decisions.