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.

Author: Brakus Tesar
Country: Cuba
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 6 March 2007
Pages: 315
PDF File Size: 1.94 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.28 Mb
ISBN: 681-8-87659-434-5
Downloads: 65244
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yokazahn

As to that, the governing principle is that the court should first considerwhether if the plaintiff were to americqn 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.

Henry 15 Ch. Decision of the Court of Appeal [] F.

American Cyanamid principles

Someone using a copolymer is not doing something covered by this invention and cyqnamid should not be held to be within the patent. It was to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved that the practice arose of granting him relief by way of interlocutory injunction; but since the middle of the 19th century this has been made subject to his undertaking to pay cyanamjd to the defendant for any loss sustained by reason of the injunction if it should be held at the trial that the plaintiff had not been entitled to restrain the cyahamid from doing what he was threatening to do.

He is not entitled to an interlocutory injunction just because he has a strong case.

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”. Such damage as the plaintiffs 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.


amercian On 5th March,Cyanamid started a quia timet action against Ethiconfor ethicoj injunction to restrain the threatened infringement of their patent bysupplying sutures made of XLG to surgeons in the United Kingdom. Ethicon’s first contention is americah the words ” a polyhydroxyacetic ester “in the principal claim bear the narrower meaning only, viz.

Wealden District Council v Mitchell. The appellants “Cyanamid”an American company. On 5th February,the Court of Appeal gave judgment. On an application for an interlocutory injunction the court must look at the respective situations of the two contending parties. The main issue in this appeal is whether PHAE, construed in the patent in suit, covers more than the homopolymer.

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 why the status quo should be preserved.

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [] AC | Croner-i

On the same day they gave notice of motion for an interlocutory injunction. A patent cannot properly be held to cover things which do not operate in the way the inventor says they do: It is givenon affidavit and has not cyaanmid tested by oral cross-examination. 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.

In the present case it could be serious for the defendants to have to put all their work into cold storage. These losses are more difficult to assess than any which could arise if an injunction were not granted and the plaintiffs succeeded. The chemical substance of which it was made was not a homopolymer but a copolymer, i. For the reasons given cyanaimd my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock inhis speech, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft, I would allowthis appeal.

The Appellants ” Cyanamid “an AmericanCompany, are the registered proprietors of the patent.

News and Articles

I would reiterate that, in addition to those to which I have referred, theremay be many other special factors to be taken into consideration in theparticular circumstances of individual cases. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Sengar. 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.


Duke of Buccleugh 12 L. So, if there is no interlocutory injunction and the plaintiffs succeed at the trial, they will recover damages under every relevant head of damage appropriate to infringement of a patent. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock,I would also allow this appeal. The instant appeal affords one example of this.

On the question of the balance of convenience reliance is placed on Graham J. Relics of this reluctance to enforce a monopoly that was challenged, even though the alleged grounds of invalidity were weak, are to be found.

American Cyanamid principles | Practical Law

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3. For the purpose of deciding whether the plaintiffs eyhicon established a prima facie case the House must decide whether on the evidence the construction for which they contend is the one. Osborne [] 1 W.

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.