翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Warner Williams and Jay Summerour ・ Warner Wing ・ Warner Wolf ・ Warner's Airport ・ Warner's End ・ Warner's Grant, Vermont ・ Warner's Hotel ・ Warner's Ranch ・ Warner, Alberta ・ Warner, New Hampshire ・ Warner, Oklahoma ・ Warner, Queensland ・ Warner, South Dakota ・ Warner, Wisconsin ・ Warner-Amex Satellite Entertainment ・ Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. ・ Warner-Spector Records ・ Warner/Chappell Music ・ Warner/Chappell Music Inc. v. Fullscreen Inc. ・ Warner/Reprise Loss Leaders ・ Warners Bay Beer Festival ・ Warners Bay High School ・ Warners Bay, New South Wales ・ Warners Solicitors ・ Warners, New York ・ Warnertown, South Australia ・ Warnervale Airport ・ Warnervale railway station ・ Warnervale, New South Wales ・ Warnerville Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. ： ウィキペディア英語版 Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. ''Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.'', 520 U.S. 17 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, affirming the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine. ==Facts== The plaintiff Hilton Davis Chemical Co., a dyemaker, had developed an "ultrafiltration" process to purify dyes. An amendment to the patent had specified that a solution used in the process must have a pH level between 6.0 and 9.0. The amendment was filed in order to clarify that this patent did not overlap with a previously patented process that used a solution with a pH level above 9.0 - however, the plaintiff was unable to explain why the amendment stated a ''lower'' level of 6.0. The defendant had developed a process using a solution with a pH level of 5.0, which was outside the range of the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff sued for infringement, conceding that the defendant's process did not ''literally'' infringe, but relying on the doctrine of equivalents to support the claim of infringement. The defendant argued that the doctrine of equivalents was no longer appropriate for courts to use because Congress had made some changes to the patent statute after the Supreme Court's 1950 decision establishing the propriety of using the doctrine. 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「Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.」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.