In the 1903 case of Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over patent rights and royalties. The plaintiff, Field, had purchased a patent for an asphalt pavement composition from its inventor and subsequently sold it to the defendant company with an agreement that he would receive royalty payments based on usage. However, after discovering that similar patents existed prior to their purchase (making their own patent invalid), the defendant stopped making royalty payments. The court held in favor of Barber Asphalt Paving Company stating that since they were not gaining exclusive use from this particular patent due to pre-existing ones, they were under no obligation to continue paying royalties as per contract terms even though they continued using the invention.

In the dissenting opinion for FIELD v. BARBER ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision that a city could not be held liable for patent infringement when it contracted with another party to pave its streets using a patented method. He argued that if an individual or corporation can be sued for infringing on a patent, then so too should cities and other public entities who benefit from such infringements. Harlan contended that there was no legal basis to exempt municipalities from liability in these cases and warned of potential abuses where cities might knowingly contract with parties who were infringing upon patents in order to avoid paying licensing fees themselves. He also expressed concern about the impact this ruling would have on inventors' rights and their ability to protect their intellectual property.