In the case of Compco Corporation v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Compco Corporation. The issue at hand was whether or not a company could be held liable for copying an unpatented product design and selling it as their own. Day-Brite had sued Compco for unfair competition after they copied their fluorescent lighting fixture design which was not patented but registered under copyright law. However, the court decided that federal patent laws preempted state unfair competition laws in this context and since there was no patent protection on the original product, copying it did not constitute infringement or any illegal activity. This decision reinforced that only inventions meeting strict criteria are eligible for patent protections while others remain free to copy.

In the dissenting opinion for COMPCO CORPORATION v. DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, INC., Justice Black argued that Congress did not intend to allow states to provide patent-like protection for unpatented designs when it passed the Copyright Act of 1909. He believed that allowing states to do so would undermine federal law and create a patchwork of different protections across the country, which could stifle innovation and competition. Furthermore, he contended that such state laws were unconstitutional because they interfered with interstate commerce by restricting trade between states. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold these types of state laws.