Source: http://www.cpahkltd.com/CN/info.aspx?n=20100416093805807099
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:14:16+00:00

Document:
在Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo案中，美国最高法院认为，禁令是一项衡平法的救济措施,不能够被“当然”适用。永久禁令的发出是建立在遭受了不可弥补的损害、法律救济不充足的基础上的。法院还应当权衡禁令的发出对诉讼各方带来的影响，并特别应当考虑禁令对公众的影响。456 U.S. 305, 311-313, (1982).
在Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell案中，美国最高法院同样指出，“永久禁令作为一项衡平法上的救济措施不应被当然适用，这是一项基本原则。”法院认为，不可弥补的损害和不充分的法律救济是发出禁令的基础。在每个案件中，法院应当对是否发出禁令进行利弊权衡，并考虑公共利益的因素。480 U.S. 531, 542, (1987).
 “Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.” 35 U.S.C. §261.
 “Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 154 (a) (1).
 “The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. §283.
 Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Competitive Techs, 370 F.3d 1354, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
 MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
 eBay Inc., et al. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391.
 i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 589 F.3d 1246, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 §261
 §283
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.