Difference between revisions of "1/21/11 : Bonito Boats notes"
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchHamburgler (talk | contribs) |
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
-Bonito Boats filed action against Thunder Craft for violation of the Florida statute. | -Bonito Boats filed action against Thunder Craft for violation of the Florida statute. | ||
| − | -Conclusion: dismissed due to confliction with federal patent law | + | -Conclusion: dismissed by Florida Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court due to confliction with federal patent law via the Supremacy Clause; federal patent law rules higher than state law. |
| + | |||
'''Notes and Facts of the case''' | '''Notes and Facts of the case''' | ||
| − | - | + | - |
Revision as of 21:51, 20 January 2011
Case Summary
-Bonito Boats: No patent filed for the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull or manufacturing process (sprayed-fiberglass mold) by which the finished boats were produced.
-After 6 years of production, a Florida statute prohibited the use of a direct molding process to duplicate unpatented boat hulls, and the sale of them.
-Bonito Boats filed action against Thunder Craft for violation of the Florida statute.
-Conclusion: dismissed by Florida Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court due to confliction with federal patent law via the Supremacy Clause; federal patent law rules higher than state law.
Notes and Facts of the case
-
