Goodenough Horseshoe Manufacturing Company v. Rhode Island Horseshoe Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1895. The case involved a dispute between two horseshoe manufacturing companies over the use of a particular horseshoe design. Goodenough Horseshoe Manufacturing Company had created a horseshoe design that was patented in 1891. Rhode Island Horseshoe Company had created a similar design and was selling it without Goodenough's permission. Goodenough sued Rhode Island Horseshoe Company for patent infringement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Goodenough, finding that Rhode Island Horseshoe Company had infringed on Goodenough's patent. The Court held that the design was sufficiently novel and useful to be protected by patent law. The Court also held that Rhode Island Horseshoe Company had acted in bad faith by copying Goodenough's design without permission. The Court's decision in this case established the precedent that a patent holder can sue for infringement if another company copies their design without permission. This case also established the precedent that a design must be novel and useful in order to be protected by patent law.

In Goodenough Horseshoe Manufacturing Company v. Rhode Island Horseshoe Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patent for horseshoes granted by the United States Patent Office could be enforced against another company that had been using similar designs prior to the issuance of the patent. The majority opinion held that since there was no proof of actual infringement, and because it appeared from all evidence presented that both companies were independently producing their own versions of horseshoes with slight variations in design, there was no basis for enforcing a patent on this particular product. Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while it may have been true that both companies were making their own version of horseshoes with minor differences in design, they still used substantially similar methods and processes which constituted an infringement upon Goodenough's patented invention. He argued further than any person who uses or sells products made according to someone else’s patented process should be liable regardless if they are aware or not aware of such patents existing at the time they began selling those goods.