Manhattan Medicine Company v. Wood & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of patent infringement. The Manhattan Medicine Company had obtained a patent for a medicine that was used to treat a variety of ailments. The defendants, Wood & Another, had created a similar medicine and were selling it without the permission of the Manhattan Medicine Company. The Manhattan Medicine Company sued the defendants for patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had indeed infringed upon the patent of the Manhattan Medicine Company. The Court found that the defendants had copied the medicine of the Manhattan Medicine Company and had sold it without permission. The Court also held that the patent of the Manhattan Medicine Company was valid and enforceable. The Court ordered the defendants to pay damages to the Manhattan Medicine Company for the infringement. This case established the principle that patent holders have the right to protect their inventions from infringement. It also established that patent holders can seek damages from those who infringe upon their patents. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

In Manhattan Medicine Company v. Wood & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an invention could be assigned to another person without their consent. The majority opinion held that such an assignment was valid and enforceable under existing law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would lead to unfairness and injustice in certain cases where the assignee had no knowledge of or control over the invention prior to its assignment. He argued that allowing assignments without consent would give too much power to those who are able to secure patents on inventions they do not own or have any right or title in; thus creating a situation whereby one party can unjustly benefit at the expense of another due solely to their superior position as patent holder rather than rightful owner of the invention itself.