This case involved a dispute over the validity of a patent for a corn-planter. The patentee, Brown, had obtained a patent from the United States Patent Office for a corn-planter. Guild, the defendant, had made and sold a corn-planter that was similar to Brown's patented invention. Brown sued Guild for patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that the patent was valid and that Guild had infringed upon it. The Court found that the patent was novel and that it was not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Court also found that the patent was not anticipated by prior art. The Court held that Guild had infringed upon Brown's patent and was liable for damages. The Court's decision established that a patentee is entitled to the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the patented invention. The Court also established that a patentee is entitled to damages for any infringement of the patent. This case established the principle that a patentee is entitled to the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the patented invention and is entitled to damages for any infringement of the patent.

In the case of Brown v. Guild, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the patent granted to Corn-Planter was invalid due to its lack of novelty and utility. He noted that while it may have been novel at the time, subsequent inventions had made it obsolete and thus not useful for any practical purpose. Furthermore, he argued that since there were no new elements or features added by Corn-Planter's invention, it should not be considered valid under existing patent law. In conclusion, Justice Field stated his belief that granting such a patent would set an undesirable precedent for future inventors who could potentially use this as justification for obtaining patents on similar products without adding anything truly novel or useful to them.