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):||3 January 2015|
|PDF File Size:||17.94 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A patent cannot properly amerucan held to cover things which do not operate in the way the inventor says they do: For the purpose of deciding whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case the House must decide whether on the evidence the construction for which they contend is the one.
Returning, therefore, to the instant appeal, it cannot be doubted that the affidavit evidence shows that there are serious questions to be tried. If the defendant is enjoined temporarily from doing something that he has notdone before, the only effect of the interlocutory injunction in the event of hissucceeding at the trial is to postpone the date at which he is able to embarkupon a course of action which he has not previously found it necessary toundertake ; whereas to interrupt him in the conduct of an established enter-prise would cause much greater inconvenience to him since he would haveto start again to establish it in the event of ehicon succeeding at the trial.
It was in order to enable the existence of any such rule of law to be considered by your Lordships’ House that leave to appeal was granted. As to inutility, see Terrell on the Law of Patents, 12th ed. The court, however, expressly deprecated any attempt to fetter the discretion of the court by laying down any rules which would have the etthicon of limiting the flexibility of the remedy as a means of achieving the objects that I have indicated above.
At most there could only be a minor commercial set-back in the development of their business, bearing in mind ehicon resources. Arthurs v News Group Newspapers Ltd.
Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland22 Nov It would be most exceptional for your Lordships to give leave to appeal to this House in ethicob case which turned cyanammid where the balance of convenience lay. If, on the other hand, damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in the event of his succeeding at the trial, the court should then consider whether, on the contrary hypothesis that the defendant were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to do that which was sought to be enjoined, he would be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from doing so between the time of the application and the time of the trial.
The defendants contested its validity on divers grounds and also contended that it did not cover their product. Injunction – Interlocutory – Jurisdiction to grant – Principles on which interlocutory injunction to be granted – No need to be satisfied that permanent injunction probable at trial – Protection of parties – Balance of convenience – Criteria – Rule identical in patent cases.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC 396
Nevertheless this authority was treated by Graham J. In the instant appeal, however, the question of the balance of convenience, although it had been considered by Graham J. Here, if anything, it means that the plaintiff has more than a 50 per cent. It should not be the policy of the court to preserve the statuts quo in all cases but only to prevent irreparable damage to the plaintiffs: 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.
These are to be contrastedwith expressions in other cases indicating a much less onerous criterion, suchas the need to show ethkcon there is ” certainly a case to be tried ” Jones v. Returning, therefore, to the instant appeal, it cannot be doubted that theaffidavit evidence shows that there are serious questions to be tried.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Sengar. Such damage as the ethicpn might suffer, prior to judgment, if they succeed at the trial, will not have any material effect on their annual profit and loss account and that damage can easily be met by the defendants. Accordingly the application was refused.
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.
Its priority ameriacn in the United Kingdom was October 2, The appellants “Cyanamid”an American company. You have reach your max limit. Vosper  2 Q. The respondents counterclaimed for revocation of the patent.
The chemical substance of which it was made was not a homopolymer but a copolymer, i. My Lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a defendant from doing acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiff’s legal right is made upon contested facts, the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesi the existence of the right or the violation of it, or both, is uncertain and will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action.
Accordingly the Claimant was given permission to appeal.
American Cyanamid principles | Practical Law
On 5th March,Cyanamid started a quia timet action against Ethiconfor an injunction to restrain the threatened infringement of their patent bysupplying sutures made of XLG to surgeons in the United Kingdom.
One must look at the facts of each particular case to see whether irreparable damage would be caused. It is given on affidavit cyanammid has not been tested by oral cross-examination. This inventor solved the problem only by using homopolymers and materials which he said have certain characteristics. 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 cyanamld of it, or both, is uncertain and willremain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action.
It is givenon affidavit and has not been tested by oral cross-examination.
News and Articles
McCausland v Drenagh Farms Ltd. They were made from animal tissues popularly known as catgut.
Grigg, Limited 1 K. These losses are more difficult to assess than any which could arise if an injunction were not granted and the plaintiffs succeeded. No other head of damage would arise.
So he granted Cyanamid an interlocutory injunction restraining Ethicon from infringing the patent until the trial or further order.
The Court of Appeal wrongly construed the claim and specification and its decision was based on a misapprehension of the evidence. Paterson for the respondent company. It was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Hubbard v. Ethicon appealed to the Court of Appeal.