Silliman v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States government had the right to take possession of a patent without compensating the patent holder. The case was brought by Dr. Benjamin Silliman, a professor at Yale University, who had invented a process for refining petroleum. The United States government had taken possession of the patent without compensating Silliman, claiming that it was necessary for the public good. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Silliman, finding that the government had violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Court held that the government had taken Silliman's patent without providing him with just compensation, and thus had violated the Fifth Amendment. The Court also held that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the taking of the patent was necessary for the public good. The ruling in Silliman v. United States established the principle that the government cannot take private property without providing just compensation. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is an important part of the Fifth Amendment's protection of private property rights.

In Silliman v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patentee of an invention could be held liable for damages caused by his product when it had been sold with no warranty or guarantee. The majority opinion found that the patentee could not be held liable because he had made no express promise as to its quality and performance, nor did he have any control over how it was used after sale. Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that a manufacturer should bear some responsibility for injuries resulting from their products even if they are sold without warranties or guarantees. He argued that manufacturers must take reasonable precautions in designing and constructing their products so as to minimize potential harm, regardless of what is stated in sales contracts or other documents related to them. Furthermore, Field asserted that allowing manufacturers off the hook would encourage negligence and lead people away from using due care when creating new inventions which may cause injury if improperly designed or constructed.