Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TS Production LLC v Drew Pictures Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 194
CONFLICT OF LAWS – local proceeding – similar proceeding in United States – application to set aside order staying local proceedings – whether local court clearly inappropriate forum for dispute as a whole – anti-suit injunction in relation to United States proceeding – common substratum of fact – principles governing grant of anti-suit injunction – whether proceeding vexatious or oppressive – principles relating to issue of anti-suit injunctions – relationship between anti-suit injunction and stay proceeding INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Australian and foreign copyright proceedings – joint ownership in cinematograph films – whether known to Australian law – whether Australian law applicable to United States proceeding Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) United States Copyright Act, 17 USCA §§ 101, 201
Advanced Bionics Corporation v Medtronic Inc 59 P3d 231 (Cal 2002) Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 Allendale Mutual Insurance Company v Bull Data Systems, Inc 10 F3d 425 (7th Cir 1993) Atkinson Footwear Ltd v Hodgskin International Services Ltd (1994) 31 IPR 186 Auberbach v Frank 685 A2d 404 (DCApp 1996) Bank of Tokyo Ltd v Karoon [1987] AC 45 BHP Billiton Limited v Shultz (2004) 221 CLR 400 Boothby v Munday (1821) 5 Madd 297; 56 ER 908 British South Africa Company v The Companhia De Moçambique [1893] AC 602 Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc [1998] AC 854 CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Limited (1997) 189 CLR 345 Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492 Garsec v His Majesty The Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211 Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Muftizade [1979] AC 508 London Film Production Limited v Intercontinental Communications Inc 580 F Supp 47 (SDNY 1984) Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545 National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v The Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209 Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 331 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [2000] Ch 403 Peruvian Guano Company v Bockwoldt (1883) 23 Ch D 225 Pfaff v Chrysler Corporation 610 NE2d 51 (Ill 1992) Potter v Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd (1906) 3 CLR 479 Puttick v Tenon Ltd (formerly Fletcher Challenge Forests Ltd) (2008) 250 ALR 582; [2008] HCA 54 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491 Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 Stein Associates, Inc v Heat & Control, Inc 748 F2d 653 (Fed Cir 1984) Tritech Technology Pty Ltd v Gordon (2000) 48 IPR 52 TSMC North America v Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation International 161 CalApp4th 581 (Cal Ct App 2008) Tyburn Productions Ltd v Conan Doyle [1991]Ch 75 Underhill v Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897) Vanity Fair Mills, Inc v T Eaton Co Limited 234 F2d 633 (2nd Cir 1956) Voda v Cordis Corporation 476 F.3rd 887 (Fed Cir 2007) Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Proprietary Limited (1990) 171 CLR 538 Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, (14th ed, 2006) TS PRODUCTION LLC v DREW PICTURES PTY LTD (ACN 088 783 000) and DREW HERIOT
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate