Hoe et al. v. Wilson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of copyright infringement. The plaintiffs, Hoe and Company, were a printing company that had published a book entitled "The Life of Abraham Lincoln." The defendant, Wilson, had printed and sold copies of the book without the permission of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that Wilson had infringed upon the copyright of the plaintiffs and was liable for damages. The Court reasoned that the copyright of the plaintiffs was valid and that Wilson had violated it by printing and selling copies of the book without permission. The Court also held that the copyright of the plaintiffs was not limited to the exact words of the book, but extended to the arrangement and selection of the facts contained in the book. The Court's decision in Hoe et al. v. Wilson established the principle that copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder and that the copyright holder is entitled to damages for such infringement. This case also established the principle that copyright protection extends beyond the exact words of a work to the arrangement and selection of facts contained in the work.

In Hoe et al. v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an improved printing press should be granted to Richard M. Hoe and his associates or to William B. Wilson, who had filed a caveat claiming that he had invented the same machine prior to Hoe's application for a patent. The majority of justices held that since there was no proof of actual invention by Wilson before the date of Hoe's application, it would not be proper to grant him priority over Hoe in obtaining the patent rights; however Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that even though there may have been no evidence presented at trial showing when exactly Wilson constructed his machine and applied for its protection under law, such evidence could still exist outside of court records; secondly, Field believed that if any doubt existed as to which party actually invented the device first then it should be resolved in favor of granting priority rights to whoever made their claim earliest - regardless if they were able to prove their invention or not - so long as they did not knowingly infringe upon another person’s work or ideas without due credit being given where appropriate.