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):||15 September 2014|
|PDF File Size:||11.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The balance of convenience is primarily a matter for the judge of first instance. I can amedican no ground for interfering in the Learned Judge’s assessment ofthe balance of convenience or for interfering with the discretion that heexercised by granting the injunction. It is in this context that the House of Lords should say that the strength of the defendants’ case is such that there should be no interlocutory injunction.
In each case one must ask why damages are not a sufficient remedy. This is a trifling amount of the total sales of a giant corporation and irreparable damage could not conceivably be caused to the plaintiffs. The Evans Marshall case  1 W. The Court of Appeal wrongly construed the claim and specification and its decision was based on americah misapprehension of the evidence.
This specification has not been so framed. As to the evidence on the balance of ameerican what is relevant here, so far as regards damage to the plaintiffs, is the possible impact of an interlocutory injunction on domestic sales. I agree with it and that this appeal should beallowed and the Order of Graham J. It is where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies indamages available to either party or to both, that the question of balance ofconvenience arises.
You have reach your max limit.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC | Croner-i
Privy Council09 Sep The following additional cases were cited in argument: At that date the absorbablesutures in use were of natural origin. My Lords, for the reasons given amefican my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock, in his speech, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft, I would allow this appeal. On 5th February,the Court of Appeal gave judgment.
This limitation will apply notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy provided herein.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC 396
Arthurs v News Group Newspapers Ltd. 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.
It was to mitigatethe risk of injustice to the plaintiff during cganamid 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 etthicon to pay ameican 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.
I turn to consider what those principles are.
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.
Cuthbert v Clinishare Ltd. It is where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies in damages available to either party or to both, that the question of balance of convenience arises. In those cases where the legal rights of the parties depend upon facts that are in dispute between them, the evidence available ameriican the court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction is incomplete.
If, however, the specification bears the wider meaning alleged, it is invalid for inutility, insufficiency, unfair basis and false suggestion, since the copolymers will not have, as surgical sutures, the characteristics described in the body of the patent. It is notorious that newpharmaceutical products used exclusively by doctors or available only onprescription take a long time to become established in the market, that muchof the benefit of the monopoly granted by the patent derives from the factthat the patented product is ameican the opportunity of becoming establishedand this benefit continues to be reaped after the patent has expired.
The defendants contested its validity on divers grounds and also contended that it did not cover their product. Relics of this reluctance to enforce a monopoly that was challenged, even though the alleged grounds of invalidity were weak, are to be found. 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.
The main issue in this appeal is whether PHAE, construed in the patent in suit, covers more than the homopolymer.
On construction the case put forward by the respondents is barely arguable. These arematters to be dealt with at the trial.
So unless the material available to the court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his cyanamiv for a permanent injunction at the trial, the court americna go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought. 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.
Vosper  2 Q.