In the 1891 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Barbed Wire Patent, also known as Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Company, a dispute arose over patent rights for barbed wire design. The plaintiff was the Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company who held patents for certain designs of barbed wire fencing which they claimed were infringed upon by the defendant's product - Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Company. The defendants argued that their design was different enough to not infringe on any existing patents and that some of those patents should be declared invalid due to prior use or lack of novelty in their designs. The court ruled in favor of Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Co., upholding its patent rights after examining evidence presented about each party’s specific wire design. They found significant similarities between both products indicating infringement had occurred despite minor differences in construction methods used by each company. This case set an important precedent regarding intellectual property law, affirming that even small changes do not necessarily create a new invention if it still uses or imitates fundamental aspects from an already patented item.

In the dissenting opinion for The Barbed Wire Patent case, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient novelty and non-obviousness in Glidden's design to warrant a patent. They pointed out that even though individual elements of his invention were known before, their unique combination created an innovative product with new utility. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on prior art, arguing that earlier patents did not disclose or suggest Glidden’s specific design. Therefore, they contended that Glidden’s barbed wire patent should be upheld as valid because it represented a significant advancement over previous designs and met all requirements for patentability under U.S law.