▁federal ▁government ▁exclus ively . ▁Since ▁the ▁trial ▁court ▁had ▁found ▁St iff el ' s ▁pat ent ▁invalid ▁as ▁ins u fficient ly ▁invent ive , ▁its ▁product ▁design ▁was ▁thus ▁in ▁the ▁public ▁domain ▁and ▁no ▁state ▁law ▁could ▁be ▁used ▁to ▁prevent ▁S ears ▁from ▁copying ▁it . ▁ ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁made ▁a ▁similar ▁r uling ▁in ▁a ▁companion ▁case ▁decided ▁the ▁same ▁day , ▁Comp co ▁Cor p . ▁v . ▁Day - B rite ▁Light ing , ▁Inc .. ▁ ▁These ▁two ▁cases ▁were ▁the ▁first ▁dec isions ▁of ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁that ▁states ▁could ▁not , ▁because ▁of ▁the ▁Sup rem acy ▁Cla use ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution , ▁create ▁their ▁own ▁pat ent ▁or ▁pat ent - like ▁laws . ▁The ▁issue ▁had ▁been ▁raised , ▁but ▁not ▁decided , ▁in ▁Gib b ons ▁v . ▁Og den , ▁in ▁which ▁Att orney ▁General ▁W irt ▁argued ▁on ▁beh alf ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁for ▁federal ▁pat ent ▁pre em ption ▁of ▁New ▁York ' s ▁grant ▁of ▁a ▁steam bo at ▁pat ent ▁to ▁Robert ▁F ult on . ▁ ▁Background ▁ ▁St iff el ▁Co . ▁was ▁a ▁lamp ▁manufact urer ▁that ▁had ▁created ▁a ▁" pole ▁lamp ", ▁which ▁was ▁a ▁vertical ▁t ube ▁standing ▁u pr ight ▁between ▁the ▁floor ▁and ▁ce iling ▁of ▁a ▁room , ▁and ▁with ▁lamp ▁fi xt ures ▁along ▁the ▁outside ▁of ▁the ▁t ube . ▁ ▁St iff el ▁Co . ▁had ▁secured ▁a ▁mechanical ▁pat