In Western Electric Manufacturing Company v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Company, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The patentee, Western Electric Manufacturing Company, had obtained a patent for a certain type of electric meter. Ansonia Brass & Copper Company had manufactured and sold meters that infringed on the patent. Western Electric sued Ansonia for infringement, but the patent was later declared invalid. The Supreme Court held that the patentee could recover damages for infringement of a patent that had been declared invalid. The Court reasoned that the patentee had a right to recover damages for the period of time that the patent was in force, even if it was later declared invalid. The Court noted that the patentee had acted in good faith and had a reasonable expectation that the patent was valid. The Court also noted that the patentee had invested considerable time and money in developing the invention and that it would be unjust to deny the patentee the right to recover damages for the period of time that the patent was in force. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a patentee can recover damages for infringement of a patent that has been declared invalid. The Court reasoned that the patentee had acted in good faith and had a reasonable expectation that the patent was valid, and that it would be unjust to deny the patentee the right to recover damages for the period of time that the patent was in force.

In the case of Western Electric Manufacturing Company v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation of patent law and failed to consider relevant evidence. He asserted that the lower court's decision should have been affirmed because it was based on substantial evidence and correctly applied existing legal precedent. Furthermore, he noted that there were several other issues raised by both parties during trial which could not be addressed due to lack of sufficient proof or argumentation from either side. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that the majority had made an incorrect ruling and urged for a reversal so as to allow further consideration of all facts presented at trial before making any final decisions regarding this matter.