Search for: "Application of American Cyanamid Company"
Results 21 - 35
of 35
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2013, 1:47 am
Birss J granted the claimants' applications and allowed all but one of the claimants' requests for redaction. [read post]
31 May 2012, 5:43 pm
” He emphasised the difference between this test and the usual American Cyanamid approach and highlighted the effect of Cream Holdings Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 2:45 pm
Potential Significance Canadian Courts have long paid close attention to English injunction cases (most notably, of course, American Cyanamid). [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm
The claimant must show at least a "strong prima facie case" and the balance of convenience test in American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, does not apply, see Francis v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2003] EWCA Civ 443-paragraph 16. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm
The claimant must show at least a "strong prima facie case" and the balance of convenience test in American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, does not apply, see Francis v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2003] EWCA Civ 443-paragraph 16. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
American Cyanamid Co., 718 P.2d 1318, 1324 (Kan. 1986); Wooderson v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 2:07 am
While the judgment seems to be correct on facts, its understanding and application of American Cyanamid raises a few eyebrows [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm
American Home Products, Inc., slip op. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 2:00 am
Good arguable claim The context of applying for an interim injunction is important: an applicant need only show that they have a “good arguable claim“; the hearing is not intended to represent a full hearing of the merits of the case (see American Cyanamid Co. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
American Cyanamid, Inc., slip op. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
So we decided to take an in-depth look at all of the the precedent that rejects application of a “fraud on the market” reliance presumption to state-law claims.Just to make sure that everyone’s with us, briefly “fraud on the market” is a doctrine that waters down fraud (and, plaintiffs would like to say, other liability theories based on claimed misinformation) by presuming reliance in certain limited circumstances. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
Superior Court, 751 P.2d 470 (1988):Thus far the courts have tended to hold the manufacturer to a high standard of care in preparing and testing drugs of unknown potentiality and in giving warning; but in the absence of evidence that this standard has not been met, they have refused to hold the maker liable for unforeseeable harm.Id. at 479 (reaffirming state-of-the-art defense in design defect context).For these same reasons of policy, we reject plaintiff's assertion that a drug manufacturer… [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 5:14 am
Traders who make claims for their products which they cannot readily and firmly justify will have to live with the risk that their rivals can honestly and reasonably call those claims into question pending a final resolution as to whether the claims are in fact good". * on this basis, applying the American Cyanamid [1975] AC 396 standards for granting interim relief, the Court of Appeal would dismiss Boehringer's appeal.The IPKat says, the fact that the Human Rights Act… [read post]
4 Jun 2007, 10:39 am
The First Circuit had ruled in the 2004 decision in American Cyanamid v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 6:29 pm
American Cyanamid Co.: "one who thinks along the line of conventional wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate, whether by patient, and often expensive, systematic research or by extraordinary insights, it makes no difference which. [read post]
