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.
||Turks & Caicos Islands
||7 September 2004
|PDF File Size:
|ePub File Size:
||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
McCausland v Drenagh Farms Ltd. One may distinguish between a difficult cyanamd and a serious question. The Appellants ” Cyanamid “an AmericanCompany, are the registered proprietors of the patent. As to the assessment of damages should the plaintiffs succeed, see Terrell on the Law of Patents, 12th ed.
American Cyanamid principles
The court is not justified in caynamid upon anything resembling a trial of the action upon conflicting affidavits in order to evaluate the strength of either party’s case. As to that, the governing principle is that the court should first consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant’s continuing to do what was sought to be en joined between the time of the application and the time of the trial.
The facts stated in the opinion of Lord Diplock were erhicon follows: It would be unwise to attempt even to list all thevarious matters which may need to be taken into consideration in decidingwhere the balance lies, let alone to suggest the relative weight to be attachedto them. In his opinion it lay infavour of cyanaamid the status quo until the trial of the action.
Cyanamid’s contention is that at the date of publication of the patent those words were used as a term of art in the chemistry of polymerisation not only in the narrower meaning of a homopolymer of which the units in the chain, apart from the end stabilisers, consisted solely of glycolide radicals but also in the broader meaning of a copolymer of which up to 15 per cent. The suggested distinction between what the plaintiff must establish as respects his right and what he must show as respects its violation did not long survive.
On an application for an interlocutory injunction the court must look at the respective situations of the two contending parties.
Go to 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 grant 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.
So unless the material available to the courtat the hearing cyanamkd 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.
The grant of an interlocutory injunction is a remedy that is both temporaryand discretionary. This judgement does not cite any other record. This was that, once doctors and patients had got used toEthicon’s product XLG in the period prior to the trial, it might well becommercially impracticable cuanamid Cyanamid to deprive the public of it byinsisting on a permanent injunction at the trial, owing to the damaging effectwhich this would have upon its goodwill in this specialised market andthus upon the sale of its other pharmaceutical products.
An attempt had been made to reconcile these apparently differing approaches to the exercise of the discretion by holding that the need to show a probability or a strong prima facie case applied only to the establishment by the plaintiff of his right, and that the lesser burden of showing an arguable case to be tried applied to the alleged violation of that right by the defendant Donmar Productions Ltd.
A further source of damage to the defendants arises out of the great expense involved in developing and preparing to market their products over many years. Corona Lamp Works 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 case is disproportionate to that of the other party. Upload brief to use the new AI search.
It erred in holding that the appellants had not established that prima facie the patent in suit would be infringed by the marketing of the respondents’ suture.
It is legitimate to frame a patent widely if the invention has been so described in the body of the specification. Problems may arise, not from the difficulty of a question of.
American Cyanamid principles | Practical Law
The grant of an interlocutory injunction is a remedy that is both temporary and discretionary. In practical experience, parties in patent litigation rarely find difficulty in reaching an agreement on damages.
The respondents ccyanamida subsidiary of another American company, were the dominant suppliers of catgut sutures in the United Kingdom market. Voluminous affidavits and exhibits were filed on behalf of each party. He is not entitled to an interlocutory injunction just because he has a strong case. As Patent Judge he has unrivalled experience ofpharmaceutical patents and the way in which the pharmaceutical industryis carried on.
Key Phrases are not available yet. After a detailed analysis of the conflicting expert testimony he said, at p.
News and Articles
Lacking in this experience, an Appellate Court should behesitant to over-rule his exercise of his discretion, unless they are satisfied thathe has gone wrong in law. The grant of a patent is an ethocon recognised by the Statute of Monopolies which was designed to give everyone freedom to trade. The relevant authorities are Preston v. Privy Cyanamod09 Sep The observations of the Lords were not confined to claims for processes. On construction the case put forward by the respondents is barely arguable.
That is to say that I do not consider that a prima cyaamid case of infringement is established. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Sengar.
The use of such expressions as “a probability,” “a prima facie case,” or “a strong prima facie case” in the context of the exercise of a discretionary power to grant an interlocutory injunction leads to confusion as to the object sought to be achieved by this form of temporary relief.
In the present case Graham J. On July 30,he granted an interlocutory injunction upon the usual undertaking in damages by Cyanamid. No other head of damage would arise. The main issue in this appeal is whether PHAE, construed in the patent in suit, covers more than the homopolymer. It is accepted that there may be cases in which the risk of damage to the plaintiffs is such that an injunction should be granted e.
Historically there was undoubtedly a time when in an action for infringement of a patent that was not already “well established,” whatever that may have meant, an interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement would not be granted if counsel for the defendant stated that it was intended to attack the validity of the patent. Where other factors appear ethickn be evenly balanced it is a counsel of prudence to cynamid such measures as are calculated to preserve the status quo.
The plaintiffs say that the claim covers copolymers but the defendants’ copolymer does not have any of the qualities which they allege.