The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Glidden acquired a patent in 1874 for his improvements on barbed wire fences. Washburn (P) eventually acquired the patent. A large number of parties challenged the validity of the patent in court. They based their complaints on novelty. At trial, it was clear that the patent did not claim the invention of barbed wire and that from prior art and several patents barbed wire was a well-known invention. Glidden claimed a design improvement where the barbs were held in place without the need for manual labor to hammer barbs into the wire. This improvement enabled quick and easy production and even easier installation in the field. Ds began producing the design and P sued to stop them for violation of the patent. Ds argued that P’s product was similar to other patented products and that the improvements were obvious. They argued that the invention lacked novelty. They also argued that the product was in use by others when it was patented. The lower courts agreed with Ds. P appealed each case, and all of them were consolidated before the Supreme Court.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.