Thorn Wire Hedge Company v. Fuller was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the Thorn Wire Hedge Company and Fuller, a farmer, over a contract for the sale of a wire fence. The company had sold Fuller a wire fence, but Fuller refused to pay for it, claiming that the fence was not of the quality promised in the contract. The company sued Fuller for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the company and Fuller was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the company had provided Fuller with a fence of the quality promised in the contract. The Court also held that Fuller had breached the contract by refusing to pay for the fence, and that the company was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court's decision in this case established that contracts must be clear and unambiguous in order to be enforceable, and that parties to a contract must fulfill their obligations in order to avoid liability for breach of contract.

In the case of Thorn Wire Hedge Company v. Fuller, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patent for an invention had been infringed upon by another party. The majority opinion held that there was no infringement because the defendant's product did not contain all of the elements described in plaintiff's patent and thus could not be considered a copy or imitation of it. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that even if some elements were missing from defendant’s product, they still constituted an infringement since those elements were essential components; second, he contended that even if none of these features were present in defendant’s product but its overall design and purpose remained substantially similar to plaintiff’s patented invention then too it should be considered as infringing upon their rights. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that defendants should have been found liable for infringing on plaintiffs' patent rights due to either one or both reasons mentioned above.