Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of patent infringement. The case involved a dispute between the Commissioner of Patents and William Whiteley, who had been granted a patent for a new type of sewing machine. Whiteley had accused the Commissioner of infringing on his patent by allowing a third party to manufacture and sell a similar machine. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of Patents had not infringed on Whiteley's patent. The Court reasoned that the Commissioner had not actually made or sold the machine, and that the third party had not copied Whiteley's design. The Court also noted that the Commissioner had acted in good faith and had not intended to infringe on Whiteley's patent. The Court's decision in Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley established that the Commissioner of Patents was not liable for patent infringement when it allowed a third party to manufacture and sell a similar machine. The decision also established that the Commissioner of Patents had acted in good faith and had not intended to infringe on Whiteley's patent.

In Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a patent granted to William H. Whiteley for an improvement in washing machines should be revoked due to fraud and misrepresentation on his part during the application process. The majority opinion held that although there were some discrepancies between what he had stated in his application and what actually occurred, they did not rise to the level of fraud or intentional deception necessary for revocation of a patent under existing law at the time. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it was clear from all evidence presented that Mr. Whiteley had intentionally misled both examiners and courts about material facts related to his invention which would have affected its validity as a patentable device if known at the time it was issued; thus, he argued that revoking Mr. Whiteley's patent was appropriate given these circumstances since patents are only valid when obtained through honest means rather than by deceitful practices such as those employed by him here.