Dale Tile Manufacturing Company v. Hyatt was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The plaintiff, Dale Tile Manufacturing Company, had obtained a patent for a tile-making machine and sued the defendant, Hyatt, for infringement. The defendant argued that the patent was invalid and should be declared so. The Supreme Court held that the patentee could not recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The Court reasoned that the patentee had no right to damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid, as the patentee had no right to the patent in the first place. The Court also noted that the patentee had no right to damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid, as the patentee had no right to the patent in the first place. The Court concluded that the patentee could not recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The Court's decision in Dale Tile Manufacturing Company v. Hyatt established that a patentee cannot recover damages for infringement of a patent that has been declared invalid. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in patent law.

In Dale Tile Manufacturing Company v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable because there was no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that contracts should not be invalidated simply because they lack consideration; rather, he believed that courts should consider other factors such as fairness and justice when determining enforceability of a contract. He further stated that if an agreement is fair to both parties then it should still be considered valid regardless of whether or not any form of consideration has been exchanged in order to make it binding. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against the majority's ruling on this case and advocating for more leniency when evaluating contracts lacking in considerations but which are otherwise justifiable agreements between two consenting parties