This Supreme Court case involved Joseph Battin, the patentee, and Samuel Battin, his assignee. The plaintiffs in error were suing James Taggert for infringement of their patent rights. Robert Radcliffe and John Johnson were also defendants in error. The dispute centered around a machine that was invented by Joseph Battin to make nails from sheet iron without cutting or punching them out with dies. It was argued that this invention had been patented by the plaintiff but infringed upon by the defendant's use of it without permission or payment of royalties due to its inventor. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered damages paid to them for violation of their patent rights as well as costs incurred during litigation proceedings against all three defendants: Taggert, Radcliffe and Johnson

In the case of Joseph Battin, Patentee, and Samuel Battin, Assignee v. James Taggert (1854), the dissenting opinion argued that a patent should not be granted for an invention if it is already in use by another person or entity. The dissenters argued that granting such a patent would create an unfair monopoly on the invention and limit competition in the market place. Furthermore, they contended that allowing patents to be issued for inventions already in use would encourage inventors to copy existing products rather than innovate new ones. They also noted that this could lead to higher prices as companies with exclusive rights over certain inventions may charge more than competitors who do not have those same rights. Ultimately, they concluded that patents should only be granted when there is evidence of originality and novelty from an inventor's work - something which was lacking in this particular case.