Matthews v. Densmore and Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The case was brought by the patentee, Matthews, against Densmore and others for infringing on his patent. The Supreme Court held that a patentee could not recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The Court reasoned that a patentee should not be allowed to benefit from a patent that had been declared invalid, as it would be unfair to those who had infringed on the patent in good faith. The Court also noted that the patentee had the opportunity to appeal the decision of invalidity, but had failed to do so. The Court's decision in Matthews v. Densmore and Others established that a patentee cannot recover damages for infringement of a patent that has been declared invalid. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in patent law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Matthews v. Densmore and Others, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted the law regarding a contract between two parties. He argued that under existing laws, when one party to a contract fails to perform their obligations as agreed upon by both sides, then they are liable for damages caused by their breach of agreement. In this case, he believed that Densmore was not responsible for any damage caused by his failure to fulfill his contractual obligation because there was no evidence presented showing actual harm or loss suffered due to his non-performance. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that some sort of injury had been sustained due to Densmore's breach of contract, such an award would still be inappropriate since it is impossible for courts to determine with certainty what amount should be awarded in such cases without knowing all relevant facts about each individual situation. Ultimately he concluded that awarding damages based on speculation alone would lead only lead injustice and confusion rather than justice being served properly according