United States v. Isham was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not found until after the statute of limitations had expired. The defendant, Isham, was indicted for a crime that had occurred more than three years prior to the indictment. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that Isham could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was not a bar to prosecution, but rather a defense that could be raised by the defendant. The Court noted that the statute of limitations was intended to protect defendants from having to defend themselves against stale charges, but that it did not prevent the government from bringing a valid indictment. The Court also noted that the statute of limitations was not a jurisdictional bar, and that the government could bring a valid indictment even if the statute of limitations had expired. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Isham could be convicted of the crime despite the fact that the indictment was not found until after the statute of limitations had expired. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was not a bar to prosecution, but rather a defense that could be raised by the defendant.

In United States v. Isham, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in regards to patent rights for inventions. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress intended for appeals from decisions by the Commissioner of Patents to be heard by federal courts as they are authorized under existing statutes and regulations. He further noted that if this were not allowed then inventors would be deprived of their right to seek redress through legal means when their patents were denied or infringed upon without any recourse available other than filing suit against those who wrongfully used them in state courts which could prove costly and time consuming. Therefore, he concluded that Congress must have intended for these cases to be heard by federal courts since they provide more efficient remedies than state ones do in such matters.