Bonito Boats, Inc v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc

Citation103 L.Ed.2d 118,109 S.Ct. 971,9 USPQ2d 1847,489 U.S. 141
Decision Date21 February 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-1346,87-1346
PartiesBONITO BOATS, INC., Petitioner v. THUNDER CRAFT BOATS, INC
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner developed a hull design for a fiberglass recreational boat that it marketed under the trade name Bonito Boat Model 5VBR. The manufacturing process involved creating a hardwood model that was then sprayed with fiberglass to create a mold. The mold then served to produce the finished fiberglass boats for sale. No patent application was filed to protect the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull or the manufacturing process by which the finished boats were produced. After the Bonito 5VBR had been on the market for six years, the Florida Legislature enacted a statute that prohibits the use of a direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, and forbids the knowing sale of hulls so duplicated. Petitioner subsequently filed an action in a Florida Circuit Court, alleging that respondent had violated the statute by using the direct molding process to duplicate the Bonito 5VBR fiberglass hull and by knowingly selling such duplicates. Petitioner sought damages, injunctive relief, and an award of attorney's fees under the Florida law. The trial court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the statute conflicted with federal patent law and was therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. The Florida Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: The Florida statute is pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause. Pp. 146-168.

(a) This Court's decisions have made clear that state regulation of intellectual property must yield to the extent that it clashes with the federal patent statute's balance between public right and private monopoly designed to promote certain creative activity. The efficient operation of the federal patent system depends upon substantially free trade in publicly known, unpatented design and utilitarian conceptions. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661; Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669. A state law that interferes with the enjoyment of such a conception contravenes the ultimate goal of public disclosure and use that is the centerpiece of federal patent policy. Moreover, through the creation of patent-like rights, the States could essentially redirect inventive efforts away from the careful criteria of patentability developed by Congress over the last 200 years. Pp. 146-157.

(b) By offering patent-like protection for ideas deemed unprotected under the federal patent scheme, the Florida statute conflicts with the "strong federal policy favoring free competition in ideas which do not merit patent protection." Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 656, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 1903, 23 L.Ed.2d 610. The Florida statute does not prohibit "unfair competition" in the usual sense of that term, but rather is aimed at promoting inventive effort by preventing the efficient exploitation of the design and utilitarian conceptions embodied in the product itself. It endows the original boat manufacturer with rights against the world, similar in scope and operation to the rights accorded the federal patentee. This protection is made available for an unlimited number of years to all boat hulls and their component parts. Protection is available for subject matter for which patent protection has been denied or has expired, as well as for designs which have been freely revealed to the consuming public by their creators. In this case, the statute operates to allow petitioner to assert a substantial property right in a design idea which has already been available to the public for over six years. Pp. 157-160.

(c) That the Florida statute does not restrict all means of reproduction does not eliminate the conflict with the federal patent scheme. In essence, the statute grants the original manufacturer the right to prohibit a form of reverse engineering of a product in general circulation. This is one of the rights granted to the federal patent holder, but has never been part of state protection under the law of unfair competition or trade secrets. The study and recomposition of unpatented articles available to the public at large may lead to significant advances in technology and design. Moreover, the threat of reverse engineering of unpatented articles creates a significant spur to the achievement of the rigorous standards of patentability established by Congress. By substantially altering this competitive reality, the Florida statute and similar state laws may erect themselves as substantial competitors to the federal patent scheme. Such a result would contravene the congressional intent to create a uniform system for determining the boundaries of public and private right in utilitarian and design ideas. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315, distinguished. Pp. 160-165.

(d) The Patent and Copyright Clauses of the Federal Constitution do not by their own force, or by negative implication, deprive the States of the power to adopt rules to promote intellectual creation within their own jurisdictions where Congress has left the field free of federal regulation. Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 93 S.Ct. 2303, 37 L.Ed.2d 163. Even as to design and utilitarian conceptions within the subject matter of the patent laws, the States may place limited regulations on the exploitation of unpatented ideas to prevent consumer confusion as to source or the tortious appropriation of trade secrets. Both the law of unfair competition and state trade secret law have coexisted harmoniously with federal patent protec- tion for almost 200 years, and Congress has demonstrated its full awareness of the operation of state law in these areas without any indication of disapproval. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 104 S.Ct. 615, 78 L.Ed.2d 443. The same cannot be said of the Florida scheme at issue here, where Congress has explicitly considered the need for additional protections for industrial designs and declined to act. By according patent-like protection to the otherwise unprotected design and utilitarian aspects of products in general circulation, the Florida statute enters a field of regulation which the patent laws have reserved to Congress and is therefore pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 165-168.

515 So.2d 220 (Fla.1987), affirmed.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Tomas Morgan Russell, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Charles E. Lipsey, Washington, D.C., by invitation of the Court as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.

Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

We must decide today what limits the operation of the federal patent system places on the States' ability to offer substantial protection to utilitarian and design ideas which the patent laws leave otherwise unprotected. In Interpart Corp. v. Italia, 777 F.2d 678 (1985), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a California law prohibiting the use of the "direct molding process" to duplicate unpatented articles posed no threat to the policies behind the federal patent laws. In this case, the Florida Supreme Court came to a contrary conclusion. It struck down a Florida statute which prohibits the use of the direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, finding that the protection offered by the Florida law conflicted with the balance struck by Congress in the federal patent statute between the encouragement of invention and free competition in unpatented ideas. 515 So.2d 220 (1987). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 486 U.S. 1004, 108 S.Ct. 1727, 100 L.Ed.2d 192 (1988), and we now affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

I

In September 1976, petitioner Bonito Boats, Inc. (Bonito), a Florida corporation, developed a hull design for a fiberglass recreational boat which it marketed under the trade name Bonito Boat Model 5VBR. App. 5. Designing the boat hull required substantial effort on the part of Bonito. A set of engineering drawings was prepared, from which a hardwood model was created. The hardwood model was then sprayed with fiberglass to create a mold, which then served to produce the finished fiberglass boats for sale. The 5VBR was placed on the market sometime in September 1976. There is no indication in the record that a patent application was ever filed for protection of the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull, or for the process by which the hull was manufactured. The 5VBR was favorably received by the boating public, and "a broad interstate market" developed for its sale. Ibid.

In May 1983, after the Bonito 5VBR had been available to the public for over six years, the Florida Legislature enacted Fla.Stat. § 559.94 (1987). The statute makes "[i]t . . . unlawful for any person to use the direct molding process to du- plicate for the purpose of sale any manufactured vessel hull or component part of a vessel made by another without the written permission of that other person." § 559.94(2). The statute also makes it unlawful for a person to "knowingly sell a vessel hull or component part of a vessel duplicated in violation of subsection (2)." § 559.94(3). Damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees are made available to "[a]ny person who suffers injury or damage as the result of a violation" of the statute. § 559.94(4). The statute was made applicable to vessel hulls or component parts duplicated through the use of direct molding after July 1, 1983. § 559.94(5).

On December 21, 1984, Bonito filed this action in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. The complaint alleged that respondent here, Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (Thunder Craft), a Tennessee corporation, had violated the Florida statute by using the direct molding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
650 cases
  • Rohm and Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., Civ. A. No. 78-384-JLL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • June 30, 1989
    ......___, 109 S.Ct. 2068, 104 L.Ed.2d 633 (1989). Cf. Bonito Boats Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 109 ......
  • Golden Eye Media USA, Inc. v. Trolley Bags UK Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 12, 2021
    ...Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148 (1989) ("To qualify for protection, a design must present an aesthetically pleasing appearance that is not dictated by function alone, and m......
  • Murray v. Motorola, Inc., No. 07-CV-1074.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 29, 2009
    ...... the use of specified equipment on recreational boats, id. at 60, 123 S.Ct. 518, it had determined that ... as a decision to regulate") (citations omitted); Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, ......
  • Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., Civ. A. No. 88-Z-499.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • July 21, 1995
    ...... the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor." Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • A Practitioner's Guide To Protecting Technology Assets
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 19, 2012
    ...for whom the copyright system is designed to provide incentives for more creations"). 5.Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 144 (1989) (commenting that Congress struck a balance "in the federal patent statute between encouragement of invention and free 6.TrafFix D......
  • Drawing A Line In The Floor—Courts Are Struggling With The Overlap Between Design Patent And Copyright
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 19, 2015
    ...to it, but rather whether the design was "dictated solely by" the article's function. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148 (1989). So long as the functionality of the article can be achieved by alternative designs (which is known as the "multiplicity of for......
46 books & journal articles
  • Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-4, May 2013
    • May 1, 2013
    ...Novelty in Patent Law , 60 DUKE L.J. 919, 931 (2011) (footnote omitted) (quoting Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148 (1989)). 252. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). 253 . See Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fe......
  • Antitrust's “State Action” Doctrine and the Policy of the Commerce Clause
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 39-3, September 1994
    • September 1, 1994
    ...Arguably, Congress made theidentical determination in enacting the antitrust laws.w59 376 U.S. 225 (1964).60 395 U.S. 653 (1969).61 489 U.S. 141 (1989).62 Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 479 (1974).63 474 U.S. 409 (1986).64 15 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3432 (1982).65 474 U.S. at 422.66 ......
  • PREEMPTION EXEMPTION: FDA-APPROVED ABORTION DRUGS AFTER DOBBS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 5, June 2023
    • June 1, 2023
    ...Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 340 (2008) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). (135) Cf. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 166-67 (1989) ("The case for federal pre-emption is particularly weak where Congress has indicated its awareness of the operation of state......
  • Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...information exceeding the scope of trade secret protections are preempted by federal law. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 156-57 (1989) (invalidating a Florida statute that prohibited a form of reverse engineering to duplicate unpatented boat hulls). 15. Gener......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT