Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bonito Boats Vs. Thunder Craft Boats

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 21, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

63 entries 5 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Lear, Inc. Vs. Adkins US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1969
  2. Hotchkiss Vs. Greenwood US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  3. Diamond Vs. Chakrabarty US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1980
  4. GoldsteIn Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1973
  5. United States Vs. Bass US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
  6. Bonito Boats v. Thunder
    Search
  7. Craft Boats - 489 U.S. 141 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Bonito Boats v. Thunder
    Search
  8. Craft Boats, 489 U.S. 141 (1989) Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder
    Search
  9. upon substantially free trade in publicly known, unpatented design and utilitarian conceptions. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel
    Search
  10. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite
    Search
  11. system for determining the boundaries of public and private right in utilitarian and design ideas. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron
    Search
  12. creation within their own jurisdictions where Congress has left the field free of federal regulation. Goldstein v. California
    Search
  13. its full awareness of the operation of state law in these areas without any indication of disapproval. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
    Search
  14. and design ideas which the patent laws leave otherwise unprotected. In Interpart Page 489 U. S. 144 Corp. v. Italia
    Search
  15. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that, under this Court's decisions in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel
    Search
  16. Co., 376 U. S. 225 (1964), and Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite
    Search
  17. Graham v. John
    Search
  18. to federal protection of the idea embodied in the article thus placed in public commerce. In the case of Pennock v. Dialogue
    Search
  19. Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon
    Search
  20. already available to the public, or that which may be readily discerned from publicly available material. See Aronson v. Quick
    Search
  21. United States v. Dubilier
    Search
  22. determine not only what is protected, but also what is free for all to use. Cf. Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas
    Search
  23. patent, the subject matter of the patent passes to the free use of the public as a matter of federal law. See Coats v. Merrick
    Search
  24. Kellogg Co. v. National
    Search
  25. Singer Mfg. Co. v. June
    Search
  26. Singer, supra, at 163 U. S. 185 . In our decisions in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel
    Search
  27. footnote omitted). Trade dress is, of course, potentially the subject matter of design patents. See W. T. Rogers Co. v. Keene
    Search
  28. the scope of federal preemption of state regulation of the subject matter of patent. Thus, in Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron
    Search
  29. of producers as an incentive to product innovation. Judge Hand captured the distinction well in Crescent Tool Co. v. Kilborn
    Search
  30. Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg
    Search
  31. with the incentives created by the federal patent monopoly. See Goldstein, Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron
    Search
  32. Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise
    Search
  33. may rely upon the lack of notice in exploiting shapes and designs accessible to all. See Devices for Medicine, Inc. v. Boehl
    Search
  34. Ray v. Atlantic
    Search
  35. place great weight on the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Interpart Corp. v. Italia
    Search
  36. Ibid., quoting Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Electric
    Search
  37. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives
    Search
  38. Inc., 456 U. S. 844 , 456 U. S. 863 (1982) (WHITE, J., concurring in result). See also Bailey v. Logan
    Search
  39. court's decisions applying the teaching of Sears and Compco in other contexts. See Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics
    Search
  40. Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Jeff
    Search
  41. operation is inconsistent with the operation of the federal patent laws. See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul
    Search
  42. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
    Search
  43. Rice v. Santa
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Bonito Boats v. Thunder
    Search
  45. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder
    Search
  46. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel
    Search
  47. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron
    Search
  48. Corp. v. Italia
    Search
  49. and Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite
    Search
  50. of Pennock v. Dialogue
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial