Historically, intellectual property (IP) owners could rely on injunctive remedies to prevent continued infringement. The Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision changed this, however. After eBay, patent courts no longer apply presumptions that push the deliberative scales in favor of injunctions (or “property rule” protection). Instead, patent injunctions require a careful four‐factor analysis, where plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable injury (i.e., that money damages cannot compensate). Without question, eBay has made it harder for patent plaintiffs to secure injunctions, and has led many district courts to consider innovation policy concerns (e.g., the strategic behavior of patent “troll” plaintiffs) in the injunction calculus. By and large, courts’ more deliberative approach to patent injunctions post‐eBay has been viewed as beneficial for the patent system.

中文翻译：

---

贸易保密禁令，披露风险和eBay的影响

从历史上看，知识产权（IP）所有者可以依靠禁令性补救措施来防止继续侵权。但是，最高法院的eBay诉MercExchange判决改变了这一点。在eBay上市之后，专利法院不再适用推定审讯规模以支持禁令（或“财产规则”保护）的推定。相反，专利禁令需要仔细的四因素分析，在这种情况下，原告必须证明无法弥补的伤害（即，金钱损失无法弥补）。毫无疑问，eBay使得专利原告更难获得禁令，并导致许多地区法院在禁令演算中考虑创新政策方面的问题（例如专利“ troll”原告的战略行为）。总体而言，人们认为eBay发布后法院对专利禁令采取的更具审议性的方法对专利制度有利。