In the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Company in 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot provide patent-like protection to a product design through its unfair competition law if that design is not patented under federal law. The Stiffel Company had obtained both a design and mechanical patent for its pole lamp which was copied and sold by Sears at lower prices. When Stiffel sued Sears for unfair competition under Illinois State Law, it won in both district court and on appeal with the courts ruling that even though federal patent laws did not protect Stiffel's lamp designs from being copied, state unfair competition laws could offer such protection. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court level, this decision was overturned as it conflicted with federal patent law principles which allow free copying of items or products unprotected by valid patents.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Company, it was argued that federal patent laws should not preempt state unfair competition laws when a company copies and sells another's product without making any significant changes to it. The dissenting justices believed that allowing such behavior would undermine the purpose of patent law by encouraging rather than discouraging imitation. They contended that while patents are meant to promote innovation by granting inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, they also serve as an incentive for others to improve upon those inventions or develop new ones in order to compete in the market once the patent expires. If companies can simply copy and sell identical products without facing legal consequences under state law, then there is less motivation for them to innovate or invest in research and development.