In the 1937 case of Phillips-Jones Corporation et al. v. Parmley, Executrix, et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court in New York had jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation for alleged patent infringement occurring within New York state. The defendant corporation argued that it did not have sufficient contacts with the state to warrant jurisdiction under due process principles. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that by shipping its products into New York through an independent contractor for sale and distribution, knowing they would be sold there, constituted "doing business" in the state sufficiently enough to establish personal jurisdiction over them regarding disputes arising from those activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Phillips-Jones Corporation et al. v. Parmley, Executrix, et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state tax on intangible property held by non-residents was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of interstate commerce and due process. He contended that such taxation is unfair as it subjects non-resident owners to double taxation - once in their home state and again in the state where they hold intangible property interests. Furthermore, he pointed out that this type of tax could discourage investment across state lines, thus impeding free trade among states which contradicts constitutional provisions protecting interstate commerce. Lastly, Justice Stone expressed concern about potential abuses if every jurisdiction were allowed to impose taxes on all intangibles owned by nonresidents without any physical presence or business activity within its borders.