489 U.S. 141 (1989) (Supreme Court of the United States)
Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats is a cornerstone preemption case at the intersection of intellectual property and constitutional law.
Does federal patent law preempt a state statute that prohibits the use of a direct molding (plug molding) process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, thereby granting patent-like protection to designs placed in the public domain?
Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that conflict with the objectives of the federal patent system are preempted. The federal patent laws embody a careful balance: in exchange for a limited-term monopoly on qualifying inventions and designs, the public gains disclosure and, upon expiration or ineligibility, free access to copy and use that which is in the public domain. States may not, through unfair competition or other statutes, grant patent-like protection to subject matter that either failed to meet federal patentability standards or was never the subject of a federal patent. While states may regulate deception (e.g., passing off) and protect trade secrets consistent with federal policy, they cannot prohibit reverse engineering or copying of unpatented, publicly available designs. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.; Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.; Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.
Yes. The Florida statute prohibiting plug molding of unpatented boat hulls is preempted by federal patent law because it impermissibly grants patent-like protection to subject matter in the public domain and conflicts with the objectives and balance of the federal patent system.
Bonito Boats is a leading case on patent preemption and the public domain. It teaches that: (1) copying unpatented, publicly available designs is generally lawful under federal policy; (2) states cannot create patent-like rights via unfair competition or anti-copying statutes that bar reverse engineering or other lawful copying of public domain articles; and (3) permissible state regulation in the IP space targets deception and confidentiality (e.g., passing off, trade secrets) without granting exclusive rights in publicly available subject matter. For law students, the case is essential for exam analysis on conflict preemption, the scope of state unfair competition law, and the policy underpinnings of the patent system.