In American Cyanamid Co v Ethicom Ltd  AC , the court developed a set of guidelines to establish whether an applicant’s case merited the granting of . Where an interlocutory injunction is sought, the balance of convenience will be the overriding consideration. P applied for an interlocutory injunction to prevent D . Parliamentary Archives,HL/PO/JU/4/3/ HOUSE OF LORDS. AMERICAN CYANAMID. N LIMITED. Lord DiplockViscount DilhorneLord Cross of.
|Country:||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||6 January 2004|
|PDF File Size:||8.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.60 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This was that, once doctors and patients had got used to Ethicon’s product XLG in the period prior to the trial, it might well be commercially impracticable for Cyanamid to deprive the public of it by insisting on a permanent injunction at the trial, owing to the damaging effect which this would have upon its goodwill in this specialised ccyanamid and thus upon the sale of its other pharmaceutical products. If damages in the measure recoverable under such an undertaking would bean adequate remedy and the plaintiff would be in a financial position to paythem, there would be no reason upon this ground to refuse an interlocutoryinjunction.
That is to say” that I do not consider that a prima facie case of infringement is established. The hearing there took eightJays.
The respondents “Ethicon”a subsidiary of another American company, were the dominant suppliers of catgut sutures in the United Kingdom market. The question is whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury or only an injury which could be compensated in damages. I would allow the appeal and restore the order of Graham J.
The plaintiffs must be able to show that the strength of their case is such that in the circumstances there should be an interlocutory injunction. On 30th July, he cyanamd an interlocutory injunction upon the usual undertakingin damages by Cyanamid.
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.
This, however, should be done only where it is apparent upon the facts dis-closed by evidence as to which there is no credible dispute that the strengthof one party’s amfrican is disproportionate to that of the other party. If an inventor says that by using his invention certain results are achieved, the patent is invalid if they are not cyanamidd. These will vary from case to case. In view of the fact that there areserious questions to be tried upon which the available evidence is incomplete,conflicting and untested, to express an opinion now as to the prospects ofsuccess of either party would only be embarrassing to the Judge who willhave eventually to try the case.
One must look at the whole case to see whether there is a question to be tried and, if there is, then look at the balance of convenience between the parties, bearing in mind that there is good reason ammerican the status quo should be preserved.
Smerican unless the material available to the courtat the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to Go to Lord Diplock Go to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his claim fora permanent injunction at the trial, the court should go on to consider whetherthe balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the inter-locutory relief that is sought.
Here, if anything, it means that the plaintiff has more than a 50 per cent. They were ethlcon from animaltissues popularly known as catgut.
The court no doubt must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolousor vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried. Royle 36 Ch. The House should try this matter etjicon the extent of establishing how much substance there is in the defendants’ answer. This, however, should be done only where it is apparent upon the facts disclosed by evidence as to which there is no credible dispute that the strength of one party’s case is disproportionate to that of the other party.
The application can be and should be refused without the court needing to form any prima facie view as to the respective rights of the parties.
American Cyanamid principles
It is givenon affidavit and has not been tested by oral cross-examination. The plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence of irreparable damage. For the purpose of deciding whether the plaintiffs have ccyanamid a prima facie case the House must decide whether on the evidence the construction for which they contend is the one. So unless the material available to the court at the hearing of the ethucon for an interlocutory injunction fails to etbicon that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a ethion injunction at the trial, the court should go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought.
My Lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to restraina defendant from doing acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiff’s legalright is made upon contested facts, the decision whether or not to dthicon aninterlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesi theexistence of the right or the violation of it, or both, is uncertain and willremain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action.
Go to Lord Salmon Go to. The likelihood of such embarrassment provides an xmerican reason for not adopting the course that both Graham J. The purpose 4 sought to be achieved by giving to the court discretion to grant such injunctionswould be stultified if the discretion were clogged by a technical rule forbiddingits exercise if upon that incomplete untested evidence the court evaluated thechances of the plaintiff’s ultimate success in the action at 50 per cent, or less,but permitting its exercise if the court evaluated his chances at more than 50percent.
In the present case Graham J.
American Cyanamid principles | Practical Law
Payne 12 Ch. Patent specifications must not be ambiguous: Watson v Evershed LLP. The chemical substance of which it is made is not a homopolymer but acopolymer, i. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock,I would also allow this appeal. The Court, however, expressly deprecated anyattempt to fetter the discretion of the court by laying down any rules whichwould have the effect of limiting the flexibility of the remedy as a means ofachieving the objects that I have indicated above.
The essence of this invention was discovering a material which would make a satisfactory suture. In his opinion it lay infavour of maintaining the status quo until the trial of the action.
News and Articles
On February 5,the Court of Appeal gave judgment. These are sutures ofa kind that disintegrate and are absorbed by the human body once theyhave served their purpose. These will vary from case to case. This has happened here, where the chief problem to be solved was that of absorb-ability. I agree with the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, andfor the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and restore the order ofGraham J.
Duke of Buccleugh 12 L. So unless the material available to the courtat the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to 5 disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his claim fora permanent injunction at the trial, the court should go on to consider whetherthe balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the inter-locutory relief that is sought.
Relics of this reluctance to enforce a monopoly that was chanamid, even though the alleged grounds of invalidity were weak, are to be found.
In addition there was a special factor to which Graham J. Nevertheless this authoritywas treated by Graham J.