AMERICAN CYANAMID V ETHICON PDF
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):||26 July 2008|
|PDF File Size:||7.99 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change. It ethiccon to mitigatethe risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the 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 undertaking to pay damages to the defendantfor any loss sustained by reason of the injunction if ajerican should be held at thetrial that the plaintiff had not been entitled to restrain the defendant from doingwhat he was threatening to do.
It erred in americwn that the appellants had not established that prima facie the patent in suit would be infringed by the marketing of the respondents’ suture.
Leave to appealfrom that decision was granted by Your Lordships’ House.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC | Croner-i
The grant of a patent is an exception recognised by the Statute of Monopolies which was designed to give everyone freedom to trade. Glycolide was the radical of glycolic acid, which was another name for hydroxyacetic acid.
In the alternative, as commonlyhappens where the contest is between a narrower and a wider meaning ina patent specification, they attack the validity of the patent, if it bears thewider meaning, on the grounds of inutility, insufficiency, unfair basis andfalse suggestion. Arthurs cyanmaid News Group Newspapers Ltd.
News and Articles
Ethicon appealed to the Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal from that decision was granted by the House of Lords.
The Courtmust weigh one need against another and determine where ” the balance of” convenience ” lies. The test is whether the new use lies in the track of the old use.
So unless the material available to the courtat the hearing of ameriican application for an interlocutory injunction fails to 5 disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of ameerican 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.
As to the balance of convenience, see Mitchell v. Save in the simplest cases, the decision to grant or to refuse an interlocutoryinjunction will cause to whichever party is unsuccessful on the applicationsome disadvantages which his ultimate success at the trial may show he oughtto have been spared and the disadvantages may be such that the recovery ofdamages to which he would then be entitled either in the action or under theplaintiff’s undertaking would not wmerican sufficient to compensate him fully forall of them.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Sengar.
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.
The chemical substance of which it was made was not a homopolymer but a,erican copolymer, i. No sincere attempt was made to make it clear that that copolymers were included. Theyallowed the appeal and discharged the judge’s order. On 5th February,the Court of Appeal gave judgment.
Faced with this competition to catgut, Ethicon, who supplied 80 per cent. As Patent Judge he has unrivalled experience ofpharmaceutical patents and the way in which the pharmaceutical industryis carried on. It would be most exceptional for your Lordships to giveleave to appeal to this House in a case which turned upon where the balance. As to the assessment of damages should the plaintiffs succeed, see Terrell on the Law of Patents, 12th ed.
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.
Even assuming that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim in this form, the question remains whether there was infringement. They held a dominant position in the United Kingdom market for absorbent surgical sutures and adopted an aggressive sales policy. Wealden District Council v Mitchell.
Vosper  2 Q. 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. For the cyanamif given by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock inhis speech, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft, I would allowthis appeal.
The court must weigh one need against another and determine where “the balance of convenience” lies. These are sutures ofa kind that disintegrate and are absorbed by the human body once theyhave served their purpose. The object of the interlocutory injunction isto protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which 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 amedican compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if theuncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial.
Someone using a copolymer is not doing something covered by this wmerican and he should not be held to be within the patent. One cannot have a patent for a new use of an old product unless there is invention in the adaptation of the old product to the new use: In addition there was a special factor to which Graham J.
Patent specifications must not be ambiguous: Voluminous affidavits and exhibits were filed on behalf of each party. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock. If the plaintiffs have made their specification needlessly obscure, they should not be given interlocutory relief and should wait amerian they have proved their case for a monopoly in court.
Theyheld a dominant position in the United Kingdom market for absorbent surgicalsutures and adopted an aggressive sales policy. 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 extent to which the disadvantages to each party would be incapable of being compensated in damages in the event of his succeeding at the trial is always a significant dthicon in assessing where the balance of convenience lies, and if the extent of the uncompensatable disadvantage to each party would not differ widely, it may not be improper to take into account in tipping the balance the relative strength of each party’s case as revealed by zmerican affidavit evidence adduced on the hearing of the application.
Ethhicon were saying amreican If we” had to give judgment in the action now without any further evidence we” should hold that Cyanamid had not satisfied the onus of proving that their” patent would be infringed by Ethicon’s selling sutures made of XLG. Ethicon’s first contention is that the words “a polyhydroxyacetic ester” in qmerican principal claim bear the narrower meaning only, viz.
Its priority datein the United Kingdom is October 2nd, So, if there is no interlocutory injunction and the plaintiffs succeed at the trial, they will recover damages under every relevant xmerican of damage appropriate to infringement of a patent.
At that date the absorbable sutures in use were of natural origin.
Guidelines set out in this case to establish whether an applicant has an adequate case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial; but the plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial.
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. There is no suggestion that they would not be good for any damages which might be awarded against them if they lost the action eventually. Gaumont-British Picture Corporation Ltd.