In Woodman Pebbling Machine Company v. Guild, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patentee was entitled to damages for infringement of a patent. The patentee, Woodman Pebbling Machine Company, had obtained a patent for a machine used to make pebbles for use in the manufacture of glass. The defendant, Guild, had manufactured and sold a machine that was substantially similar to the patented machine. The Court held that the patentee was entitled to damages for infringement of the patent. The Court noted that the patentee had invested considerable time and money in the development of the machine and that the defendant had profited from the use of the patented machine without the patentee's permission. The Court also noted that the patentee had been deprived of the opportunity to exploit the invention and that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by the infringement. The Court concluded that the patentee was entitled to damages for the infringement of the patent and that the defendant was liable for the damages. The Court also noted that the patentee was entitled to an injunction to prevent further infringement of the patent.

In the case of Woodman Pebbling Machine Company v. Guild, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent infringement occurred when an individual purchased and used a machine that had been patented by another company. The majority opinion held that since the defendant had not manufactured or sold any infringing machines, they were not liable for patent infringement. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it should be assumed in such cases that those who purchase and use patented machines are aware of their obligations to pay royalties; secondly, he argued that even if ignorance could be established as a defense against liability for patent infringement in certain circumstances - which he did not believe to be true - it would still have no bearing on this particular case because there was evidence suggesting knowledge of the patents involved at issue here. Ultimately then, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing strongly against absolving defendants from responsibility simply due to lack of knowledge regarding patents; rather than allowing individuals to benefit from their own negligence or ignorance concerning intellectual property rights issues like these ones presented here today.