American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd
Court	House of Lords
Citation(s)	[1975] UKHL 1
Keywords
Interim injunction

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1 is an English civil procedure and UK labour law case, concerning when an interim injunction may be obtained.

Facts[]

The claimant and appellant in this case was American Cyanamid Company, an American company that inter alia 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 to the British market. American Cyanamid Company claimed that this surgical suture was in breach of their patent. At first instance, American Cyanamid Company was granted an interim injunction against Ethicon Ltd, preventing Ethicon Ltd to use the type of surgical suture at issue until the trial of the patent infringement. On appeal of Ethicon Ltd, the Court of Appeal discharged the interim injunction. American Cyanamid Company appealed against this decision to the House of Lords. The House of Lords set out detailed guidelines with regards to how the courts should deal with the grant of interim injunctions in general. In this case, the House of Lords decided that the balance of convenience lay with the appellant American Cyanamid Company and the appeal was allowed.

This section needs expansion. You can help by . (January 2022)

Judgment[]

The House of Lords set out the following guidance.

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:

• Whether there was a sufficiently serious (substantial) matter to be tried.
• Whether damages were an adequate remedy for the claimant if an injunction was not granted.
• If damages would not be an adequate remedy, whether the claimant would be able to give an undertaking in damages to the defendant.
• 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.
• If these factors were evenly balanced, the court should consider maintaining the status quo.

See also[]

• English civil procedure
• UK labour law

Notes[]

References[]

^[1]