Commercial Manufacturing Company v. Fairbank Canning Company was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1895. The case involved a dispute between two companies over the use of a patented canning machine. Commercial Manufacturing Company (CMC) had patented a machine for canning fruits and vegetables, and Fairbank Canning Company (FCC) had purchased a license to use the machine. However, FCC had made modifications to the machine without CMC’s permission, and CMC sued for patent infringement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of CMC, finding that FCC had infringed on CMC’s patent rights. The Court held that FCC had violated the terms of the license agreement by making modifications to the machine without CMC’s permission. The Court also held that FCC had not established a valid defense of “experimental use”, which would have allowed them to make modifications to the machine without CMC’s permission. The Court’s decision in this case established the principle that patent holders have the right to control the use of their inventions, and that any modifications made to a patented invention without the patent holder’s permission can constitute patent infringement. This case is still cited today as an important precedent in patent law.

In the dissenting opinion of Commercial Manufacturing Company v. Fairbank Canning Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be reversed. He believed that it was not necessary to consider whether or not there had been a contract between the parties in order to determine who owned certain machinery used by both companies. Instead, he argued that ownership should be determined based on which party had possession of the machinery at issue when litigation began. In his view, this would have resulted in a finding for Commercial Manufacturing Company since they were in possession of the machines when suit was filed against them by Fairbank Canning Company. Ultimately, however, Justice Holmes' dissent did not sway enough justices and thus his opinion became part of an unsuccessful minority position within this case's ruling.