The Barbed Wire Patent
United States Supreme Court
143 U.S. 275 (1892)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
In 1874, Joseph Glidden acquired a patent for an improvement on barbed wire. The patent was later acquired by Washburn & Moen Manufacturing (Washburn) (plaintiff). This barbed-wire improvement patent was challenged by several fence sellers (defendants) that believed the patent lacked the required novelty. Glidden did not claim he had invented barbed wire. Glidden admitted the general idea of barbed wire existed before he invented his improvement. Glidden’s patent was for a wire that held the barbs in place, without the need for the user to hammer the barbs into the wire. This invention enabled barbed wire to become a much more commercially viable product. The fence sellers argued that Glidden’s wire was not unique or novel enough to warrant its own patent. For one, the fence sellers argued Glidden’s invention lacked the required novelty for a patent because the final product was similar to previously patented types of barbed wire. The fence sellers also argued that Glidden’s invention lacked the requisite novelty because it was already in use by other barbed-wire producers at the time he applied for the patent. The circuit court sided with the fence sellers, holding that there was no novelty in the invention. Washburn appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
Dissent (Field, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
