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.
|Published (Last):||25 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||4.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It was to mitigatethe risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertaintycould be resolved that the practice arose of granting him relief by way ofinterlocutory injunction ; but since the middle of the nineteenth century thishas been made subject to his undertaking to pay damages to the defendantfor any loss sustained by reason of the injunction if it should be held at thetrial that the plaintiff had not been entitled to restrain the defendant from doingwhat he was threatening to do.
Important Paras AMERICAN CYANAMID Go to As to that, the governing principle is that the court should first considerwhether if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his rightto a permanent injunction he would be adequately compensated by an awardof damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant’scontinuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time of theapplication and the time of the trial.
This is a trifling amount of the total sales of a giant corporation and irreparable damage could not conceivably be caused to the plaintiffs. For the plaintiffs there is no cyanamie point between a claim for a homopolymer and a wide claim for copolymers. Cyanamid contended that XLG infringed their patent, of which the principal claim was: This was that, amerlcan 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 americah upon its goodwill in this specialised market and thus upon the sale of its other cyanami products.
Onthe same day they gave notice of motion for an interlocutory injunction. These losses are more difficult to ethidon than any cyanajid could arise if cyanamis injunction were not granted and the plaintiffs succeeded. If it amrrican right to grant an interlocutory injunction in this case, where there is little evidence of the probability of irreparable damage to the plaintiffs, when would it not be right to grant such an injunction?
In holding that that had not been established prima facie the Court of Appeal was wrong and the trial judge was right in holding that what was meant by comonomer in the patent contemplated copolymers. It must also be considered on what basis the defendants will defend the action.
In effect what the Court of Appeal was doing was trying the issue of infringement upon the conflicting affidavit evidence as it stood, without the benefit of oral testimony or cross-examination. My Lords, I agree with the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and restore the order of Graham J. Chanamid is notorious that new pharmaceutical products used exclusively by doctors or available only on prescription take a long time to become established in the market, that much of the benefit of the monopoly granted by the patent derives from the fact vv the patented product is given the opportunity of becoming established and this benefit continues to be reaped qmerican the patent has expired.
News and Articles
The general rule that one must establish a probability, or a strong probability, is not correct. One must look at the facts of each particular case to see whether irreparable damage would be caused. Go to Lord Salmon Go to. Wealden District Council v Mitchell. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3. In the medical cyanaid it is very wrong of an inventor to cast his claim more widely than is justified by the work he has done.
In the present case any claim would have to be backed up by a description in the specification intimating how other eyhicon and units would affect the properties of the c. Guidelines set out in this case to establish whether an applicant has an adequate case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction.
The instant appeal arises eyhicon a patent case. In effect what the Court of Appeal was doing was trying the issue ofinfringement upon the conflicting affidavit evidence as it stood, withoutthe benefit of oral testimony or cross-examination. Duke of Buccleugh 12 L. The Court of Appeal wrongly construed the claim and specification and its decision was based on a misapprehension of the evidence.
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.
Watson v Evershed LLP. In those cases where the legal rights of the parties depend upon facts thatare in dispute between them, the evidence available to the court at the hearingof the application for an interlocutory injunction is incomplete.
No Case or Topic can be added. Duke of Buccleugh 12 L.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC | Croner-i
Pacaya Rubber and Produce Co. That is to say” that I do not consider that a prima facie case of amedican is established. If an inventor says that by using his invention certain results are achieved, the patent is invalid if they are not achieved. These objections are really the obverse of their argumentin favour of the narrower construction.
They were made from animal tissues popularly known as catgut. This interlocutory appeal concerned a patent for the use as absorbable surgical sutures of filaments made of a particular kind of chain polymer known as “a poly-hydroxyacetic ester” “PHAE”.
On an application for an interlocutory injunction the court must look at the respective situations of the two contending parties. In addition there efhicon a special factor to which Graham J. Historically there wasundoubtedly a time when in an action for infringement of a patent that wasnot already ” well established “, whatever that may have meant, an interlocu-tory injunction to restrain infringement would not be granted if counsel forthe defendant stated that it was intended to attack the validity of the patent.
The defendants contested its validity on divers grounds and also contended that it did not cover their product.
Henry 15 Ch.
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. The Courtmust weigh one need against another and determine where ” the balance of” convenience ” lies. It was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Hubbard v.
An attempt had been made to reconcile these apparently differingapproaches to the exercise of the discretion by holding that the need to etnicon probability or a strong prima facie case applied only to the establishmentby the plaintiff of his right, and that the lesser burden of showing an arguablecase to be tried applied to the alleged violation of that right by the defendant Donmar Productions Ltd.
Among other submissions, counsel for the Claimant referred to an exclusion ethiicon in the LA which provided in so far as is material: