In Montgomery, Assignee v. Bucyrus Machine Works, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patentee could assign his patent rights to another party and still retain the right to sue for infringement. The patentee in this case had assigned his patent rights to the plaintiff, Montgomery, who then sued the defendant, Bucyrus Machine Works, for infringement. The defendant argued that the patentee had no standing to sue for infringement because he had assigned his patent rights to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the patentee had the right to assign his patent rights to another party and still retain the right to sue for infringement. The Court reasoned that the patentee had the right to assign his patent rights to another party, but that the assignment did not extinguish the patentee's right to sue for infringement. The Court noted that the patentee had the right to assign his patent rights to another party, but that the assignment did not extinguish the patentee's right to sue for infringement. The Court also noted that the patentee had the right to assign his patent rights to another party, but that the assignment did not extinguish the patentee's right to sue for infringement. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the patentee had the right to assign his patent rights to another party and still retain the right to sue for infringement. The Court reasoned that the patentee had the right to assign his patent rights to another party, but that the assignment did not extinguish the patentee's right to sue for infringement.

In Montgomery, Assignee v. Bucyrus Machine Works, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patent infringement suit could be brought against an assignee of a patent who had not been named in the original complaint. The majority opinion held that such suits were permissible and that it did not matter if the assignee was not named in the original complaint as long as they received notice of it before judgment was rendered. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that allowing such suits would create uncertainty for those dealing with patents; secondly, he contended that Congress had never intended to permit such actions when they passed legislation regarding patent infringement cases. He concluded by arguing that any change should come from Congress rather than through judicial interpretation of existing laws.