Storm v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a patentee could sue the United States for infringement of a patent. The case was brought by Storm, a patentee, who alleged that the United States had infringed upon his patent. The Supreme Court held that a patentee could not sue the United States for infringement of a patent. The Court reasoned that the United States was immune from suit in this context because it was a sovereign entity. The Court further reasoned that the patentee's remedy was to seek relief from Congress, as the patentee could not sue the United States directly. The Court's decision in Storm v. United States established the principle that the United States is immune from suit in patent infringement cases. This principle has been applied in subsequent cases, and it has been held that the United States is immune from suit in patent infringement cases, even if the patentee has suffered damages as a result of the infringement. The Court's decision in Storm v. United States has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in patent law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Storm v. United States, arguing that the government should not be allowed to take private property without just compensation. He argued that this was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Field further noted that while it is true that Congress has broad authority over public lands and waters within its jurisdiction, this power does not extend to taking away private rights already established by state laws. In his view, allowing such takings would amount to an unconstitutional exercise of federal power and thus violate both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued there was no evidence presented in court showing any necessity for such a taking as required by Supreme Court precedent at the time; therefore it could not stand under existing constitutional principles.