In the case of Eagleton Manufacturing Company v. West, Bradley & Carey Manufacturing Company & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patent infringement had occurred. The plaintiff, Eagleton Manufacturing Company, had obtained a patent for a certain type of machine used in the manufacture of paper. The defendants, West, Bradley & Carey Manufacturing Company and another, had manufactured and sold a similar machine. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had infringed upon the plaintiff's patent. The Court found that the defendants had copied the plaintiff's machine and had made only minor changes to it. The Court also found that the defendants had not made any improvements to the machine that would have made it substantially different from the plaintiff's machine. The Court concluded that the defendants had infringed upon the plaintiff's patent and ordered them to pay damages to the plaintiff. The Court also ordered the defendants to cease manufacturing and selling the infringing machine. This case established the principle that a patent holder can protect their invention from being copied and sold by another party.

In the case of Eagleton Manufacturing Company v. West, Bradley & Carey Manufacturing Company & Another, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that the patentee had not abandoned his rights to an invention by failing to mark it with a notice as required by law; rather, he argued that such marking was merely evidence of ownership and did not constitute abandonment or forfeiture of any right. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some technical violation on behalf of the patentee in this case, it would have been more appropriate for him to receive damages than for his entire claim to be dismissed outright. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that since no actual harm had been done due to lack of marking on part of the patentee in this case – only potential damage – then dismissal should not have been granted but instead compensation awarded accordingly.