The Schillinger v. United States case in 1894 revolved around a patent dispute. Joseph Schillinger, the plaintiff, claimed that the U.S government had infringed on his patented method for producing decorative concrete blocks while constructing buildings in Washington D.C., and sought compensation. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that the federal government was immune from lawsuits for patent infringement under sovereign immunity doctrine unless it consented to such suits. This decision established an important precedent regarding intellectual property rights and their applicability to governmental entities.

In the dissenting opinion for Schillinger v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the government should not be immune from patent infringement claims. He reasoned that if a private citizen would be held liable for such an act, then so too should the government. The majority's decision to dismiss Schillinger’s claim was based on their interpretation of U.S law as lacking explicit provision allowing suits against the federal government in cases of patent rights violation. However, Justice Brewer contended this view was overly narrow and failed to consider broader principles of justice and fairness which ought to hold all entities accountable for their actions regardless of status or power. In his perspective, it is unjustifiable to allow any entity including governments escape liability when they infringe upon individual property rights protected by patents.