489 U.S. 141 (1989)
In September 1976, petitioner Bonito Boats, Inc., a Florida corporation, developed a hull design for a fiberglass recreational boat which it marketed under the trade name Bonito Boat Model 5VBR.1 Designing the boat hull required substantial effort on the part of Bonito.2 A set of engineering drawings was prepared, from which a hardwood model was created.3 The hardwood model was then sprayed with fiberglass to create a mold, which then served to produce the finished fiberglass boats for sale.4 The 5VBR was placed on the market sometime in September 1976.5 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.6 The 5VBR was favorably received by the boating public, and a broad interstate market developed for its sale.7
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).8 The statute makes it unlawful for any person to use the direct molding process to duplicate, 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.9 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 the statute.10 Damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees are made available to any person who suffers injury or damage as the result of a violation of the statute.11 The statute was made applicable to vessel hulls or component parts duplicated through the use of direct molding after July 1, 1983.12
On December 21, 1984, Bonito filed this action in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida.13 The complaint alleged that respondent Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, had violated the Florida statute by using the direct molding process to duplicate the Bonito 5VBR fiberglass hull, and had knowingly sold such duplicates in violation of the Florida statute.14 Bonito sought a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting Thunder Craft from continuing to unlawfully duplicate and sell Bonito Boat hulls or components, as well as an accounting of profits, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.15 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that under this Court’s decisions in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. and Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., the Florida statute conflicted with federal patent law and was therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution.16 The trial court granted respondent’s motion, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint.17
On appeal, a sharply divided Florida Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ conclusion that the Florida law impermissibly interfered with the scheme established by the federal patent laws.18 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.19
Whether a Florida statute that prohibits the use of the direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls conflicts with federal patent law and is therefore preempted under the Supremacy Clause?20
State laws that offer patent-like protection to unpatented utilitarian or design ideas by restricting reverse engineering or other methods of copying conflict with the federal patent laws.21 Such laws are preempted under the Supremacy Clause. This is because the patent system requires that ideas placed in the public domain without patent protection remain free for all to use.22
Yes. The federal patent laws embody a balance under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 that limits monopolies to novel, nonobvious inventions meeting strict criteria while dedicating unpatented ideas to the public, as the Court held in Sears and Compco.23 Bonito Boats, Inc. developed and marketed the 5VBR hull in September 1976 without any patent application, exposing the design to the public for over six years before the Florida statute took effect.24 The Florida statute then prohibited Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. and others from using the direct molding process to duplicate the hull or knowingly selling such duplicates, granting Bonito rights against the world akin to those of a patentee for an unlimited duration and without regard to novelty or nonobviousness.25
This directly interferes with the federal policy, expressed in cases such as Kewanee and Aronson, that allows free exploitation through reverse engineering of unpatented items in public commerce and prevents states from redirecting inventive efforts away from the patent system's rigorous standards.26
The Florida statute conflicts with federal patent law and is preempted under the Supremacy Clause.27