28:
109:
American
Cyanamid appealed against this decision to the House of Lords. The House of Lords set out detailed guidelines on when courts should grant interim injunctions. In this case, the House of Lords decided that the balance of convenience lay with the appellant, American Cyanamid, and the appeal
152:
where an interim injunction was upheld even though the contract between the parties contained a liquidated damages clause. The Court held that the damages clause was a secondary obligation between the parties, and the interim injunction served to enforce the primary obligation present in the
99:
held a patent for absorbable surgical sutures. The defendant and respondent in this case was
Ethicon Ltd, a British company that wanted to launch a surgical suture in the British market. American Cyanamid claimed that this surgical suture was in breach of their patent.
103:
At first instance, American
Cyanamid was granted an interim injunction against Ethicon, preventing Ethicon to use the type of surgical suture at issue until the trial of the patent infringement.
135:
If it was considered that there was any difficulty regarding the availability of damages on either side, the court should consider the balance of convenience between the parties.
122:
Guidelines set out in this case to establish whether an applicant has an adequate case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The guidelines consider:
257:
132:
If damages would not be an adequate remedy, whether the claimant would be able to give an undertaking in damages to the defendant.
233:
316:
160:
noted in 2011 that the threshold for determining whether there is a serious issue to be tried "is a relatively low one".
148:
The second factor (whether damages are an adequate remedy) has been considered subsequently by the Court of Appeal in
156:
The points in the House of Lords' guidance have subsequently been referred to as the "American
Cyanamid principles".
311:
306:
284:
Metropolitan
Resources North West Ltd v Secretary of State for Home Department (on behalf of the UK Border Agency)
27:
189:
283:
270:
For example, they are referred to in this manner ahead of the record of the Lords' ruling in the
169:
76:
138:
If these factors were evenly balanced, the court should consider maintaining the status quo.
129:
Whether damages were an adequate remedy for the claimant if an injunction was not granted.
8:
210:
251:
239:
229:
92:
271:
72:
48:
38:
243:
106:
On appeal of
Ethicon, the Court of Appeal discharged the interim injunction.
300:
223:
126:
Whether there was a sufficiently serious (substantial) matter to be tried.
80:
157:
290:, paragraph 16, delivered 1 April 2011, accessed 9 October 2023
228:(4 ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom. p. 666.
118:The House of Lords set out the following guidance:
298:
192:. Nottingham, UK: LawTeacher.net. November 2013
51:, AC 396, 2 WLR 316, 1 All ER 504, FSR 593
91:The claimant and appellant in this case was
256:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
26:
182:
299:
225:The principles of equity & trusts
221:
13:
69:American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd
21:American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd
14:
328:
79:case, concerning when an interim
277:
264:
215:
204:
1:
190:"American Cyanamid v Ethicon"
175:
143:
7:
163:
113:
95:, an American company that
10:
333:
317:Injunctions in English law
60:
55:
44:
34:
25:
20:
86:
312:English civil procedure
307:English remedy case law
274:version of the judgment
170:English civil procedure
77:English civil procedure
222:Virgo, Graham (2020).
141:
120:
61:Interim injunction
235:978-0-19-885415-9
93:American Cyanamid
83:may be obtained.
65:
64:
324:
291:
281:
275:
268:
262:
261:
255:
247:
219:
213:
208:
202:
201:
199:
197:
186:
30:
18:
17:
332:
331:
327:
326:
325:
323:
322:
321:
297:
296:
295:
294:
282:
278:
269:
265:
249:
248:
236:
220:
216:
209:
205:
195:
193:
188:
187:
183:
178:
166:
146:
116:
89:
12:
11:
5:
330:
320:
319:
314:
309:
293:
292:
276:
263:
234:
214:
203:
180:
179:
177:
174:
173:
172:
165:
162:
145:
142:
140:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
115:
112:
88:
85:
63:
62:
58:
57:
53:
52:
46:
42:
41:
39:House of Lords
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
329:
318:
315:
313:
310:
308:
305:
304:
302:
289:
285:
280:
273:
267:
259:
253:
245:
241:
237:
231:
227:
226:
218:
212:
207:
191:
185:
181:
171:
168:
167:
161:
159:
154:
151:
137:
134:
131:
128:
125:
124:
123:
119:
111:
110:was allowed.
107:
104:
101:
98:
94:
84:
82:
78:
74:
71:
70:
59:
54:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
287:
279:
266:
224:
217:
211:EWCA Civ 229
206:
194:. Retrieved
184:
155:
149:
147:
121:
117:
108:
105:
102:
96:
90:
68:
67:
66:
15:
153:agreement.
301:Categories
244:1180164232
196:31 January
176:References
97:inter alia
81:injunction
252:cite book
144:Reception
45:Citations
164:See also
114:Judgment
56:Keywords
158:Newey J
150:AB v CD
272:BAILII
242:
232:
75:is an
73:UKHL 1
49:UKHL 1
87:Facts
35:Court
288:VLEX
258:link
240:OCLC
230:ISBN
198:2022
303::
286:,
254:}}
250:{{
238:.
260:)
246:.
200:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)