In the case of Stein et al., doing business under the firm name of Stein, Hall & Company, etc. v. Tip-Top Baking Company in 1924, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a contract for baking powder sales between two companies. The plaintiff (Stein, Hall & Co.) had entered into an exclusive agreement with Tip-Top Baking to supply them with baking powder but later discovered that Tip-Top was purchasing from another supplier as well. When they sued for breach of contract and damages due to lost profits, their claim was initially dismissed by lower courts because it lacked specificity about how much profit was actually lost due to this breach. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that while exact figures were not provided by Stein and Hall regarding loss amounts; sufficient evidence existed indicating there were indeed losses incurred as a result of breached exclusivity terms within their agreement with Tip Top Baking company. Therefore, they remanded the case back down to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stein et al., doing business under the firm name of Stein, Hall & Company, etc. v. Tip-Top Baking Company argued that there was no violation of patent rights by the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that while it is true that a patented process cannot be copied exactly without infriving on patent rights, minor alterations to an existing process do not necessarily constitute infringement if they result in a fundamentally different product or outcome. They contended that although Tip-Top Baking Co used similar methods as those patented by Stein, Hall & Co., their final product was significantly different and thus did not violate any patents held by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, they asserted that granting such broad protection to patents could stifle innovation and competition within industries.