In the 1890 case of Howard v. Stillwell and Bierce Manufacturing Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights. The plaintiff, Howard, alleged that he had invented a machine for making paper pulp and had obtained patents for it in both Canada and the United States. He claimed that Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co., an Ohio-based company, was infringing upon his American patent by manufacturing similar machines without his permission. However, the defendant argued that they were using designs based on Canadian patents which they owned legally. The court held in favor of Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co., ruling that owning a patent in one country does not automatically grant exclusive rights to manufacture or sell patented items globally; each nation's laws govern its own territory regarding intellectual property rights. Therefore, since there was no infringement under US law as per their ownership of relevant Canadian patents used within Canada’s jurisdictional boundaries - despite these being identical to those patented by Howard in America - there could be no actionable claim against them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Howard v. Stillwell and Bierce Manufacturing Company argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret Ohio state law regarding corporate liability. The dissent contended that under Ohio law, a corporation could be held liable for damages if it was found negligent, even if an employee had also been negligent. This interpretation differed from the majority's view which absolved corporations of responsibility when employees were at fault. Furthermore, they disagreed with how negligence was determined in this case as they believed there wasn't enough evidence presented to prove negligence on part of either party involved - neither by Howard nor by Stillwell and Bierce Manufacturing Company. They felt that these issues should have been resolved through further fact-finding rather than making assumptions based on incomplete information.