In POMACE HOLDER COMPANY v. FERGUSON, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patent for a new and useful improvement in the manufacture of pomace holders was valid. The patent was issued to the plaintiff, Pomace Holder Company, and the defendant, Ferguson, was accused of infringing on the patent. The Court held that the patent was valid and that the defendant had infringed upon it. The Court found that the patent was for a new and useful improvement in the manufacture of pomace holders, and that the defendant had used the invention without the plaintiff's permission. The Court also found that the patent was not invalid because it was not anticipated by prior art. The Court concluded that the patent was valid and that the defendant had infringed upon it. The Court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the infringement. This case established the principle that a patent is valid if it is for a new and useful improvement in the manufacture of a product, and that infringement of such a patent is actionable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in POMACE HOLDER COMPANY v. FERGUSON, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to a "confusion of rights" between patentees and inventors. He argued that Congress had intended for patents to be granted only for inventions which were new, useful, and non-obvious at the time they were made; thus any invention which did not meet these criteria should not be eligible for a patent. Furthermore, he noted that if an inventor could obtain a patent on something already known or used by others before him then it would create confusion as to who owned what rights over such inventions. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that allowing patents on previously existing inventions would undermine public confidence in the integrity of our nation's intellectual property system.