The Barbed Wire Patent
143 U.S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2022 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An improvement on a prior invention that is the final, crucial step in turning a failure into a significant commercial success is a patentable invention. Claims of a prior unpatented use seeking to invalidate a patent must be proven with evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Prior to 1867, simple wire fences were known but proved ineffective at containing cattle.
- In 1867, William D. Hunt patented a wire fence armed with small, revolving spur-wheels, which was not a practical success.
- Also in 1867, Lucien B. Smith patented a fence with wooden spools containing four sharp spurs, held in place by bends in the wire.
- In 1868, Michael Kelly patented a design using flat, diamond-shaped metal plates with a hole, which were strung on a wire and compressed with a hammer to fix them in place.
- On October 27, 1873, Joseph F. Glidden filed a patent application for his invention, which consisted of a short piece of wire coiled around a single fence wire to form a two-pointed barb, which was then locked rigidly in place by twisting a second fence wire around the first.
- Glidden's invention proved to be a massive commercial success, with production by the patent holder and its licensees growing to over 173,000 tons by 1887.
- Defendants alleged that several individuals, most notably a man named Morley, had created and publicly exhibited fences with coiled barbs in Iowa as early as 1858, but these devices were never patented and were eventually abandoned.
Procedural Posture:
- The Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Company, as assignee of the Glidden patent, sued the Beat 'Em All Barbed Wire Company and others for patent infringement in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
- The defendants conceded infringement but argued the patent was void for lack of novelty, citing prior art and alleged prior unpatented uses, particularly the 'Morley fence'.
- The Circuit Court, acting as the court of first instance, ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the Morley fence constituted a prior use that anticipated the Glidden patent, thus rendering it invalid.
- The Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Company, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's judgment directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a patent for an improved barbed wire design, which combines known elements in a new way that leads to immense commercial success, invalid for lack of novelty due to prior, less successful patented and unpatented devices?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No, the patent is not invalid. A patent for an improvement that combines known elements to achieve a new and highly beneficial result is not invalid for lack of novelty, especially when it solves a problem that prior inventions failed to address. The Glidden patent, while not a radical departure from prior art, represented the critical step that perfected barbed wire and made it a commercial success. The slight difference between Glidden's coiled barb locked by a twisted wire and Kelly's hammered plate-thorn was precisely what turned a marginal device into an industry-defining product. The court found that such commercial success and widespread adoption are strong evidence of invention. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' claims of prior unpatented use by Morley and others, establishing that such defenses require proof that is 'clear, satisfactory and beyond a reasonable doubt.' The oral testimony presented, based on faded memories from decades earlier, was deemed too unreliable to overcome the presumption of the patent's validity.
Dissenting - Justice Field
Yes, the patent is invalid. The dissent was based on the ground that there was no novelty in Glidden's invention.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying two key principles in patent law. First, it strongly affirms the doctrine of 'commercial success' as powerful secondary evidence of non-obviousness and invention, demonstrating that a minor but critical improvement can be patentable if it is what makes a technology viable. Second, it establishes an exceptionally high evidentiary standard—'beyond a reasonable doubt'—for defendants attempting to invalidate a patent with proof of prior unpatented use. This protects inventors from challenges based on unreliable oral testimony and reinforces the stability and value of issued patents.
Unlock the full brief for The Barbed Wire Patent