In Gilbert v. Moline Plough Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. The patentee, Gilbert, had obtained a patent for a plough in 1871, which was later declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. Gilbert then sued the Moline Plough Company for infringement of the patent, and the company argued that since the patent had been declared invalid, Gilbert could not recover damages for infringement. The Supreme Court held that a patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the patentee had a right to the exclusive use of the invention, and that the patentee was entitled to damages for any infringement of that right, regardless of the validity of the patent. The Court also noted that the patentee had a right to the exclusive use of the invention, and that the patentee was entitled to damages for any infringement of that right, regardless of the validity of the patent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the patentee had a right to the exclusive use of the invention, and that the patentee was entitled to damages for any infringement of that right, regardless of the validity of the patent.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gilbert v. Moline Plough Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a negative effect on patent law. He argued that Congress had intended for patents to be exclusive rights granted by the government, not subject to limitations or restrictions imposed by state laws. The majority's ruling allowed states to impose such restrictions, which he believed undermined this intent of Congress and could lead to confusion among inventors seeking protection for their inventions under federal patent law. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while it may be true that some states had passed laws limiting certain types of patents prior to 1836 when Congress first enacted its own patent legislation, those laws were never meant as an exception from federal authority over patents; rather they were simply local regulations with no bearing on national policy regarding intellectual property rights. In conclusion, Justice Field argued strongly against allowing state legislatures any control over what should be exclusively determined by federal law - namely who is entitled to receive a valid patent and how long it will remain in force once issued.