In the case of Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 1988, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Florida's law prohibiting direct molding processes to duplicate unpatented boat hull designs was preempted by federal patent law and thus invalid. The court held that such state laws conflicted with the balance struck by Congress in its patent legislation between encouraging innovation and allowing free competition. It further stated that if states could offer patent-like protection to intellectual creations which would otherwise remain unprotected as a matter of federal law, then they could potentially undermine the scheme established by Congress for fostering technological advancement through patents.

In the dissenting opinion for Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to invalidate Florida's boat hull design protection law was incorrect and overstepped federal authority. He contended that states have a right to protect businesses within their borders from unfair competition practices such as direct molding of products without any creative or inventive effort involved. The justice believed this case did not involve patent law but rather fell under state jurisdiction concerning business regulations and consumer protection laws. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that Florida’s statute conflicted with federal patent policy by offering similar protections because it dealt more with preventing deceptive business practices than protecting invention novelty or non-obviousness like patents do.