翻訳と辞書 ・ Potter Peak
・ Potter Peninsula
・ Potter Place Railroad Station
・ Potter Pond
・ Potter Pond Archeological District
・ Potter Puppet Pals
・ Potter Section House
・ Potter sequence
・ Potter Stewart
・ Potter Stewart United States Courthouse
・ Potter Township
・ Potter Township, Barnes County, North Dakota
・ Potter Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
・ Potter Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania
・ Potter Township, Pennsylvania
・ Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd
・ Potter Valley AVA
・ Potter Valley Project
・ Potter Valley Tribe
・ Potter Valley, California
・ Potter wasp
・ Potter's Bar, California
・ Potter's Electric News
・ Potter's field
・ Potter's Field (album)
・ Potter's Field (Omaha)
・ Potter's House Christian Fellowship
・ Potter's Lock
・ Potter's Lock, Wiltshire
・ Potter's Mill
|
|
| Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd
''Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd'' (1906) 3 CLR 479, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 20 March 1906. The case was an influential decision in Australian Private International Law which is generally regarded as based on an extension of the Moçambique rule to actions for infringement of patents.〔''Lucasfilm v Ainsworth'' () UKSC 39, ().〕
==Facts==
'Potter obtained a patent in Victoria for the separation of metals from sulphide ores and a patent for the same process in New South Wales. Potter claimed that (as well as a threatened infringement of the Victorian patent in Victoria) the defendant company (now BHP Billiton) had infringed the New South Wales patent at its mine in New South Wales. Broken Hill denied novelty and utility, but also said that an action for the infringement in New South Wales of a New South Wales patent was not justiciable in the Victorian courts.'〔''Lucasfilm v Ainsworth'' () UKSC 39, ().〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|