Hatch v. Dana was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a patentee could sue for infringement of a patent after the patent had expired. The plaintiff, Hatch, had obtained a patent for a machine for making paper bags. After the patent expired, the defendant, Dana, began making and selling a similar machine. Hatch sued Dana for patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that Hatch could not sue for infringement of the patent after it had expired. The Court reasoned that the patent was a personal right that expired with the patent, and that Hatch could not sue for infringement of a right that no longer existed. The Court also noted that Hatch could have sought an injunction against Dana while the patent was still in effect, but that Hatch had failed to do so. The Court's decision in Hatch v. Dana established that a patentee cannot sue for infringement of a patent after the patent has expired. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving patent infringement.

In the case of Hatch v. Dana, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his losses due to the defendant's negligence. The majority had held that because there was no contract between the parties, and thus no privity of contract, there could be no recovery for breach of duty by either party. However, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued that when one person negligently causes injury or damage to another person who is not a party to any contractual agreement between them, they should still be liable for their actions under tort law principles. He further noted that it would be unjust if someone were allowed to escape liability simply because they did not have an express agreement with those whom they injured through their own fault or neglect.