Intermittent Windshield Wipers

A now routine automotive feature pitted an individual inventor against the entire industry

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The origins of even the simplest technology are sometimes best remembered not for the ingenuity of the inventor’s imagination but rather for the endless legal disputes it engendered. In the annals of famous patent litigation, the intermittent windshield wiper holds a pride of place. The genesis of this useful but seemingly incidental feature of the modern automobile even attracted Hollywood scriptwriters in search of a latter-day David and Goliath tale that became a 2008 release called Flash of Genius.

The story revolves around a brilliant, idiosyncratic college professor named Robert Kearns. Almost blinded by a champagne cork on his wedding night in 1953, Kearns later found that the monotonous back-and-forth movement of wiper blades vexed his diminished vision, as recounted in the most commonly cited version of events.

Kearns used off-the-shelf electronic parts in 1963 to devise windshield wipers that would clean the surface and then pause. The engineer demonstrated his system to Ford and ended up revealing details of how it worked. The automaker decided not to buy wipers from a Detroit tool-and-die company to which Kearns had licensed his patent rights— and it subsequently developed its own system.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In 1976 Kearns, then working with the National Bureau of Standards, disassembled a commercial wiper system and discovered that the company had apparently adopted his own design. He promptly had a nervous breakdown and, once recovered, began a struggle that lasted until the 1990s to gain redress. Kearns recruited several of his children to help in preparing lawsuits against the world’s major auto companies, sometimes even serving as his own legal counsel. Juries ultimately determined that Ford and Chrysler had infringed Kearns’s patents, resulting in about $30 million in awards.

Critics have argued that Kearns’s inventions violated a key criterion of patentability, that an invention should not be “obvious” to one skilled in making widgets similar to the type being patented. An electronic timer—the essence of Kearns’s invention—was, if anything, obvious, Ford contended. Still, Kearns prevailed in these two cases (but not later ones), and he will live on indefinitely as a hero to small inventors.

Gary Stix is the former senior editor of mind and brain topics at Scientific American.

More by Gary Stix
Scientific American Magazine Vol 301 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Intermittent Windshield Wipers” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 301 No. 3 (), p. 86
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0909-86a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe