Anti-plug molding law

Last updated March 09, 2019

An anti-plug molding law is a statute, usually a state law, that prohibits the use of an original product, such as a boat hull, as a "plug" for making a mold to use to make copies of the original product. The plug is the core around which the walls of the mold are formed and the contours of which the mold replicates in reverse.^[1]

Technology

The Federal Circuit described plug molding technology in these terms, in its decision in the Interpart case, discussed below:

The California plug molding statute ... proscribes use of the product itself for a pattern or "plug" in a direct molding process. In that process, the product is entirely coated with a mold-forming substance that sets and which is then removed from the product and used as the mold for making numerous replicas of the product. This process is substantially less expensive than developing a mold from scratch, something the original product manufacturer has to do.

Legal challenges

Interpart case

Plug molding statutes have been challenged as interfering with the federal patent system and therefore preempted by federal law. In 1985 in Interpart Corp. v. Italia,^[2] the Federal Circuit upheld the California anti-plug molding law against a preemption challenge, when it was invoked to stop copying of an automobile rear view mirror. The court said that the law "prevents unscrupulous competitors from obtaining a product and using it as the 'plug' for making a mold." The Federal Circuit insisted that there is no "right to copy." It therefore concluded:

In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a United States court of appeals headquartered in Washington, D.C. The court was created by Congress with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which merged the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims, making the judges of the former courts into circuit judges. The Federal Circuit is particularly known for its decisions on patent law, as it is the only appellate-level court with the jurisdiction to hear patent case appeals.

The California law does not "clash" with the federal patent law; the two laws have different objectives. ... [W]e see nothing in the federal patent statutes that conflicts with California's desire to prevent a particular type of competition which it considers unfair.

Bonito Boats case

Subsequently, in Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. ,^[3] in 1989 the United States Supreme Court held the Florida anti-plug molding law preempted because it partially duplicated and therefore interfered with federal patent law.^[4] The decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. ,^[5] which held a state unfair competition law preempted on the same ground. The Supreme Court commented adversely on the Interpart decision. First, the Court brushed aside the Federal Circuit's characterization of the law as one preventing "unscrupulous" behavior:

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding a state anti-plug molding law preempted because it partially duplicated and therefore interfered with the balance Congress had struck by federal patent law. The decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964), which held a state unfair competition law preempted on the same ground.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent.

Appending the conclusionary label "unscrupulous" to such competitive behavior [i.e., copying] merely endorses a policy judgment which the patent laws do not leave the States free to make. Where an item in general circulation is unprotected by patent, reproduction of a functional attribute is legitimate competitive activity.

The Court then turned to the Federal Circuit's rejection of a "right to copy":

For almost 100 years, it has been well established that, in the case of an expired patent, the federal patent laws do create a federal right to "copy and to use." Sears and Compco extended that rule to potentially patentable ideas which are fully exposed to the public. ... By offering patent-like protection for ideas deemed unprotected under the present federal scheme, the Florida statute conflicts with the "strong federal policy favoring free competition in ideas which do not merit patent protection.

Related Research Articles

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law—that a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States (U.S.) Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.

Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company. Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

<i>Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.</i> United States Supreme Court case

Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court decision that was a companion case to Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. that the Court decided on the same day. Like Sears, Compco held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent laws was preempted by federal law.

Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption of state law by the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that the Sherman Act did not invalidate a California law prohibiting the importing of spirits not authorized by the brand owner.

To determine whether the Sherman Antitrust Act preempts a state law, courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co..

David Frederick is an appellate attorney in Washington, D.C., and is a partner with Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.

The California foie gras law or Senate Bill 1520 is a California State statute that prohibits the "force feed[ing of] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size" as well as the sale of products that are a result of this process (§ 25982). This outlawed the traditional method of producing foie gras in California. The law was enacted in 2004 and went into effect on July 1, 2012. On January 7, 2015, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson held that the portion of California's law banning the sale of foie gras within the state was preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, and enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing it. That decision was overturned on appeal on September 15, 2017, but the decision was stayed December 17 to permit the plaintiffs to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. The certiorari petition was filed on March 9, 2018.

Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317, was a U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit case involving Harold L. Bowers and Baystate Technologies over patent infringement, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. In the case, the court found that Baystate had breached their contract by reverse engineering Bower's program, something expressly prohibited by a shrink wrap license that Baystate entered into upon purchasing a copy of Bower's software. This case is notable for establishing that license agreements can preempt fair use rights as well as expand the rights of copyright holders beyond those codified in US federal law.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.

Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court unanimously held that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, does not federally preempt state tort lawsuits against auto manufacturers from injuries caused by a defective lack of certain types of seat belts.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter. The decision was controversial, with proponents claiming it frees clinical pathologists to practice their medical discipline, and critics claiming that it destabilizes patent law and will stunt investment in the field of personalized medicine, preventing new products and services from emerging in that field.

The misappropriation doctrine is a U.S. legal theory conferring a "quasi-property right" on a person who invests "labor, skill, and money" to create an intangible asset. The right operates against another person "endeavoring to reap where it has not sown" by "misappropriating" the value of the asset. The quoted language and the legal principle come from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case.

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, was a controversial decision of the Federal Circuit in which the court applied the Mayo v. Prometheus test to invalidate as patent-ineligible a patent said to "solve[ ] a very practical problem accessing fetal DNA without creating a major health risk for the unborn child." In December 2015, the Federal Circuit denied a motion for en banc rehearing, with several members of the court filing opinions urging Supreme Court review. On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Sequenom's petition for a writ of certiorari.

References

↑ See Outrigger Hull Design Protection.
↑ 777 F.2d 678 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
↑ 489 U.S. 141 (1989).
↑ At the time of the Bonito Boats decision there were some twelve state laws of this kind. See Preemption of Direct Molding Statutes, 3 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 167, 175 n.3 (1990).
↑ 376 U.S. 225 (1964).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] See Outrigger Hull Design Protection.

[2] 777 F.2d 678 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

[3] 489 U.S. 141 (1989).

[4] At the time of the Bonito Boats decision there were some twelve state laws of this kind. See Preemption of Direct Molding Statutes, 3 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 167, 175 n.3 (1990).

[5] 376 U.S. 225 (1964).