Court injunctions

Added the remedy of court injunction to previous remedies of seizure and persecution... 

A revision of the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, passed in 1938, added several provisions that impacted the food industry. Among those provisions were authorized factory inspections and the authority for court injunction to the previous seizure and prosecution actions (Janssen, 1992). Adulterated food was now defined as Sec. 402, A food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food, or if it has been prepared, packed or held under unsanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health. The importance of the whereby clause is the concept that a food product need not be contaminated physically to be considered adulterated, but has been exposed to conditions that may have resulted in contamination of the food. This situation is vastly different from that which existed at the time the 1906 Food and Drug Act was passed. 

The FDA also has statutory authority to request the Department of Justice to seek a court injunction against continued violations of the law by a prescription drug manufacturer or distributor. FDA has had mixed results in attempting to obtain injunctions from the courts, who realise that an injunction can shut down a company entirely or subject it to arbitrary demands by... 

Although not usual in these data, there were parents who tried completely to sever their links with their son or daughter. One mother had in fact obtained a court injunction to prevent her son from coming near her on account of the severe harassment occasioned by him. For the most part though, parents and siblings continued to try to maintain some contact and be supportive but finally at arm s length, in an attempt to reduce the negative impacts on the rest of the family. 

Add the remedy of court injunctions to the previous penalties of seizures and prosecutions (Hoffmann and Manning, 2002 Richter, 2003 Murray, 1995 McIntyre, 1992). 

Adding the remedy of court injunctions to the previous penalties of seizures and prosecutions. 

Authority or the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Where an advertisement is misleading, neither of these bodies has the right to seek a court injunction instead, they may simply refuse to transmit it. 

In 1938, the present Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) was enacted. It contained new provisions for tolerances for unavoidable poisonous substances, authorized standards of identity, quality, and fill of containers for foods, authorized factory inspections, and added the remedy of court injunction to the previous remedies of seizure and prosecution. 

Injunctive reHef, making the infringer stop infringing, is often more important to the copyright owner than recovering damages. The court may craft appropriate injunctive reHef. 

If the authority are of the opinion that magistrate s court action will not give an adequate remedy a complaint may be made to the High Court. This court will issue an injunction prohibiting the repeat of the nuisance. Non-compliance with an injunction constitutes contempt of court and penalties include imprisonment. 

In addition to these informal means for regulating, 5(f) authorizes EPA to seek restrictions upon the production, distribution, use, and disposal of new substances that "present or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. To ban a new chemical outright, the Agency must obtain an injunction from a U.S. district court. Any other restrictions... 

Under 5(e), following receipt and review of a PMN EPA may order a company to develop test data "sufficient to evaluate the health and environmental effects" of the new substance. However, if the PMN submitter objects to the order (and provides sufficient grounds for that objection), the order does not take effect and EPA must obtain an injunction from a U.S. district court to impose the data requirements (and any appropriate production or use restrictions). 

Harshaw sued in the U. S. District Court under the Ohio trade secret laws and was granted a permanent injunction against disclosure or use of 20 of the 40 claimed trade secrets until such time as the trade secrets had been released to the public or obtained from authorized sources. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed because ... 

It is easy to see that the employee may by no fault of his own be forced to look for a new job. Any of these factors, if proved, could sway the equities and the sympathy and holding of the court or jury. Obviously, a jury is more sympathetic to an employee who is thrown out than to one who is trying to doublecross his employer. These imponderables and the relationship of a trade secret to the employee s chances of obtaining a job elsewhere influence the likelihood of an injunction or fine being imposed for compromising a trade secret. 

After inspection, the inspector prepares a detailed Establishment Inspection Report (EIR). This is the FDA s primary record for the inspection. Time is given to the manufacturer to respond to the deficiencies found and recorded on Form FDA-483. Failure to comply with satisfactory resolution of the deficiencies found will result in the FDA sending out a Warning Letter notifying the manufacturer to comply. If the manufacturer is unable to resolve the deficiency after the deadline set by the FDA, the FDA may proceed to prosecute the manufacturer with an injunction. The injunction is a court order called Consent Decree, and the manufacturer may be required to cease operations until the problem is rectified (see Exhibit 10.4). 

Cir. 2001) Glaxo Group, Ltd v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc., 262 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (discussing district court s decision to grant preliminary injunction because generic manufacturer could not pay NDA holder s potential damages) see Chisum on Patents, 20.04(e)(iv) (Matthew Bender). 

The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the FDA on January 23, 1997, requiring the FDA to delay approval of Mylan until after Mova s 180 days of exclusivity took effect. This ruling rejected FDA s successful defense requirement as inconsistent with the plain... 

III) if before the expiration of such period the court grants a prehminary injunction... 

Injunctions The FDCA expressly authorizes the courts to restrain and enjoin acts that are in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331, which includes prohibition of adulterated products. FDA policy provides that an injunction action is appropriate where ... 

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade group representing companies that make more than 75 percent of brand-name drugs in the United States, sued the state of Maine over the validity of the Maine Rx Program. It moved for a preliminary injunction to stop implementation of the law until the court could hear its suit. The district court approved the preliminary injunction and later ruled in favor of... 

PhRMA and against the state law. A court of appeals reversed the decision, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal over the injunction because the case raised issues of national importance. 

Upjohn filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Michigan to stop the FDA from removing the drugs and named Robert H. Finch, secretary of health, education, and welfare, and Herbert L. Ley, commissioner of the FDA, as defendants. With sales of the drugs reaching 30 million a year, Upjohn had a considerable stake in the case. The district judge issued an injunction to prevent the FDA from enforcing its order and then considered the merits of the suit. 

The legislation went into effect on December 10, 2005, with several provisions for enforcement. Any person in the District of Columbia who is adversely affected by the excessive prices could file suit. Remedies included an injunction to stop sales of the prescription drug, and payment of fines, damages, attorneys fees, or court costs. 

The district court acknowledged that some harm might come to the patients if they were deprived of marijuana, but that they were bound to follow federal law. It refused to modify the original injunction, and in addition, a contempt citation was issued, along with authorization to seize the cooperative s facilities. 

---