Injunction

Remedies. A copyright owner successhiUy proving infringement has three remedies available recovery of monetary damages injunctive reHef and recovery of costs, including attorneys fees. 

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. 

The tliird major set of amendments was the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Tliis aet resoh es the legal question of w hether federal faeilities are subjeet to enforcement actions under RCRA by wai ing the go crnmcnt s so crcign iimnunity from prosecution. As a result, states, USEPA, and the Department of Justice can enforce the pro isions of RCRA against federal facilities, and federal departments and agencies can be subjected to injunctions, administrative orders, and/or pciuiltics for noncomplianec. ... 

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. 

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

Got his balance better now, I think. Morgan, goodness, the things they call themselves, these days. I forbear to point out that our family s names aren t exactly ordinary. Anyway, we can get an injunction tomorrow on the grounds that ownership s disputed. ... 

Touch not thyself. Not a Biblical injunction, but a bit of advice. You may have just gotten chemicals on your hands, in a concentration that is not noticeable, and sure enough, up go the goggles for an eye wipe with the fingers. Enough said. 

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 so-called Hippocratic injunction states Primum est non nocere , above all, do no harm. Is this really always the first aim In helping a patient there is always a risk, but if a treatment is of no benefit it should not be used. How can we know if a treatment is of benefit for all patients, for a certain population, or for an individual patient How can we get information, can we trust the authorities, the drug companies and the salesmen ... 

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). 

B. Warning letters, seizures, injunctions, and prosecutions under Sections 302, 303, and 304. 

At first, the First Matter is perceived in states of profound meditation, what Vajrayana calls states of deep abiding. This advanced meditative state is called the black of near attainment in Tibetan texts, so confirming the alchemical texts in their injunction that the black of the First Matter has to be reached before attainment can be near. Upon reaching this stage, subjective consciousness fails. The Tibetan manuals call this swooning a contemporary term would be to faint. However,... 

This injunction holds also for those who wish to make the best use of the references to the Chemisches Zentralblatt. From the abstracts in the latter the student must likewise turn to the original papers, and look up the journal mentioned at the end of the abstract. 

Reaction kinetics. The time-development of sorption processes often has been studied in connection with models of adsorption despite the well-known injunction that kinetics data, like thermodynamic data, cannot be used to infer molecular mechanisms (19). Experience with both cationic and anionic adsorptives has shown that sorption reactions typically are rapid initially, operating on time scales of minutes or hours, then diminish in rate gradually, on time scales of days or weeks (16,20-25). This decline in rate usually is not interpreted to be homogeneous The rapid stage of sorption kinetics is described by one rate law (e.g., the Elovich equation), whereas the slow stage is described by another (e.g., an expression of first order in the adsorptive concentration). There is, however, no profound significance to be attached to this observation, since a consensus does not exist as to which rate laws should be used to model either fast or slow sorption processes (16,21,22,24). If a sorption process is initiated from a state of supersaturation with respect to one or more possible solid phases involving an adsorptive, or if the... 

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 ... 

Novelty, in the patent law sense, is not required for a trade secret. W. R. Grace Co. v. Hargadine, supra, 392 F.2d, at 14. Quite clearly discovery is something less than invention. A. O. Smith Corp. v. Petroleum Iron Works Co., 73 F.2d 531, 538 (CA6 1934), modified to increase scope of injunction, 74 F.2d 934 (1935). However, some novelty will be required if merely because that which does not possess novelty is usually known secrecy, in the context of trade secrets, thus implies at least minimal novelty.. . . ... 

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. 

In Sperry-Rand Corp. vs. Rothlein (II), Rothlein felt he did not get a fair break on promotions and decided to leave Sperry-Rand and start his own competitive semiconductor company. He picked up 21 of 35 employees from Sperry-Rand for the new company. Sperry-Rand was held entitled to damages. The length of the proceedings, about five and one-half years, did much to make an injunction futile. The fact that the ex-employees developed the process gave them no greater right to use it competitively than any other employee. 

In Sperry-Rand Corp (12) vs. Electronics Concepts, Inc., et al. the ex-employees had taken valuable data on radar antennas. One had learned what he knew at Sperry-Rand and went into competition with Sperry-Rand—even competing on a government bid with stolen knowledge of the exact amount of the Sperry-Rand bid. Both damages and an injunction were awarded to Sperry. These ex-employees willfully and deliberately and with full knowledge of the unlawfulness of their acts took both technical and financial data. 

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). 

Although his race made Percy Julian an anomaly in the chemical industry in 1936 (see Bechtel, 1989), his decision to leave academe for industry was not unusual for white chemists of his time. As has been shown, the chemical industry was in the midst of a great expansion. In a 1967 interview in the New York Times, Julian was candid about being black and a scientist in the U.S. He is quoted as having said We were taught a pretty little lie - excel and the whole world lies open before you. I obeyed the injunction and found it to be wishful thinking (Borman, 1993,... 

---