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):||4 October 2009|
|PDF File Size:||7.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The notion that it is incumbent upon the court to undertake what is in effecta preliminary trial of the action upon evidential material different from thatupon which the actual trial will be conducted, is, I think, of comparativelyrecent origin, though it can be supported by references in earlier cases to theneed to show ” a probability that the plaintiff is entitled to relief ” Preston v.
Here, if anything, it means that the plaintiff has more than a 50 per cent.
I turn to consider what those principles are. On March 5,Cyanamid started a quia timet action against Ethicon for an injunction to restrain the threatened infringement of their cyanajid by supplying sutures made of XLG to surgeons in the United Kingdom.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC | Croner-i
Leave to appealfrom that decision was granted by Your Lordships’ House. On the question of the balance of convenience reliance is placed on Graham J. Voluminous affidavits and exhibits were filed on amerkcan of each party. He is not entitled to an interlocutory injunction just because he has a strong case. Henry 15 Ch.
Voluminous affidavits and exhibits were filed on behalf of each party. No sincere attempt was made to make it clear that that copolymers were included.
The object of the interlocutory injunction isto protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for ajerican hecould not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action ifthe uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial; but the plaintiff’sneed for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need ofthe defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having beenprevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not beadequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if theuncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial.
A patent cannot properly be held to cover things which do not operate in the way the inventor says they do: So he granted Cyanamid an interlocutory injunction restraining Ethicon from infringing the patent until the trial or further order.
American Cyanamid principles
These were sutures of a kind that disintegrated and were absorbed by the human body once they had served their purpose. The appellants adopt the principle laid down in Hubbard v. See also Mogul Steamship Co.
For the purposes of an interlocutory injunction the case against the specification is so strong that relief should not be granted till the rights of the parties have been tested in court.
The law recognises that there are situations in which the property in dispute has some special quality of its own, e. So unless the material available to the courtat the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to.
As to the balance of convenience, see Mitchell v. The plaintiffs say that the claim covers copolymers but the defendants’ copolymer does not have any of the qualities which they allege. An attempt had been made to reconcile these apparently differingapproaches to the exercise of the discretion by holding that the need to showa 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.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC 396
One must ameridan at the facts of each particular case to see whether irreparable damage would be caused. Please subscribe to download the judgment. In view of the fact that there are serious questions to be tried upon which the available evidence is incomplete, conflicting and untested, to express an opinion now as to the prospects of success of either party would only be embarrassing to the judge who will have eventually to try the case.
Aamerican using a copolymer is not doing something covered by this invention and he should not be held to be within the patent. The shackles of Harman Pictures N.
In the view of maerican Court ofAppeal the case which the applicant had to prove cynamid any question ofbalance of convenience arose was “prima facie ” only in the sense that theconclusion of law reached by the court upon that evidence might need to bemodified at some later date in the light of further evidence either detractingfrom the probative value of the evidence on which the court had acted orproving additional facts.
The balance of convenience is against the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The Appellants ” Cyanamid “an AmericanCompany, are the registered proprietors of the patent.
In the first place the plaintiff should show that there is some serious need for the defendant to be restrained.
They allowed the appeal and discharged the judge’s order.
In the alternative, as commonlyhappens where the contest is between a narrower and a wider meaning ina patent specification, they ccyanamid the validity of the patent, if it bears thewider meaning, on the grounds of inutility, insufficiency, unfair basis andfalse suggestion. The defendants, also an American company, manufactured in the United States and were about to launch on the British market a suture which the plaintiffs claimed infringed their patent.
His patent cannot cover the case of people who solved the cganamid by methods which do not have those characteristics.
American Cyanamid principles | Practical Law
They are all different ways of sayingthat if the claim is construed widely it includes copolymers which will nothave as surgical sutures the characteristics described in the body of the patent.
One of the reasons for the introduction of the practice of requiring an undertaking as to damages upon the. The instant appeal affords oneexample of this. In the present case any claim would have to be backed up by a description in the specification intimating how other groups and units cyanamir affect the americwn of the suture.