In the 1912 case of Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., a billiard table manufacturer. The dispute arose when Rexford claimed that he had been wrongfully dismissed from his position as an agent for the company and sought compensation for lost profits during his remaining contract term. However, it was revealed that Rexford had breached his contract by selling competing products without obtaining permission from Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., which justified their termination of him as an agent under their agreement's terms and conditions. The court held that since Rexford violated the exclusivity clause in his contract with Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., he forfeited any right to claim damages or loss of future earnings resulting from early termination of said agreement. This decision reinforced contractual obligations' importance and upheld employers' rights to terminate contracts if they are breached by employees or agents.

In the dissenting opinion for Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an improvement of billiard tables was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the supposed 'improvement' did not meet the criteria necessary for patentability as established by precedent and statute. They contended that there were no new or novel elements in this design; rather, it simply combined existing elements in a slightly different way - something they felt should not be sufficient grounds for granting a patent monopoly. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition and innovation if such minor alterations could be patented so easily. This view held that patents should only protect truly innovative ideas which contribute significantly to their field, rather than slight modifications of pre-existing designs.