Consolidated Fruit-Jar Company v. Wright was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of patent infringement. The plaintiff, Consolidated Fruit-Jar Company, had obtained a patent for a new type of fruit jar. The defendant, Wright, had created a similar jar and was selling it in competition with the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had infringed upon their patent and was thus liable for damages. The Supreme Court held that the defendant had indeed infringed upon the plaintiff's patent. The Court noted that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's design and had made only minor changes to it. The Court also noted that the defendant had not made any effort to create a new design that was not substantially similar to the plaintiff's. As such, the Court held that the defendant was liable for patent infringement and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

The Consolidated Fruit-Jar Company (plaintiff) brought suit against Wright (defendant), claiming that the defendant had infringed on their patent for a fruit jar. The Supreme Court found in favor of the defendant, ruling that the plaintiff's patent was invalid because it lacked novelty and utility. Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that although there were some similarities between prior patents and the plaintiff's invention, they did not render it unpatentable. He argued that while certain features may have been known before, when combined together as part of one device they created something new with practical applications which should be protected by law. Furthermore he noted that even if all parts of an invention are old individually, combining them into one machine or process can create something novel enough to warrant protection under existing laws.