Court decisions are binding only on the parties to the case. In practice, an offender whose business activity has been targeted can immediately set up another company to resume his or her counterfeiting activities. If the personalities of the two groups are not identical, there is a good chance that the transaction contract concluded earlier by the rights holder and the offender may have little or no influence on his subsequent tort. It would therefore be desirable to include in the settlement agreement companies related to the offender and to ensure that they will be liable for the damage caused in the event of a repeat offence. Rights holders can refer to corporate law for the definition of membership. To deal with a staggering number of cases in China, many have begun to encourage mediation in the courts. Parties who wish to take legal action are encouraged to negotiate an out-of-court settlement without being brought to justice. However, in practice, if this method fails, the parties can move on to litigation, with the settlement remaining, as far as possible, an alternative solution. Rights holders are better able to reach an agreement and include a compensation clause in the event of a repeated infringement if: Chinese jurisprudence requires that legal proceedings be taken separately when several intellectual property rights are concerned. Different patent infringement actions and/or infringement actions against the same offenders must be brought separately. In order to reach agreement on a particular case, rights holders can maximize their effectiveness by citing intellectual property rights other than those relevant in this case. In order to respond to the repeated offer of sale in the event of a patent infringement in the absence of a breach of the law for the enforcement of the grounds for infringement, it would be desirable to expressly state in the settlement agreement that, as long as the offender uses advertising content identical to those of the previous case, the offender is held liable for damages in the event of a repeat offence. In order to remedy a continuing and repeated offence, offenders may have a reasonable period of time to ensure the destruction of all advertising materials, products and forms that are the subject of an offence, among other things.
If these materials are rediscovered at the end of the additional period, the offender is liable for the damage in the event of a repeat offence. Even after the violation complaint, some offenders continue to model a certain product and design design design for the rights holder`s patent. However, the modified product may continue to be a claims protection product. In this case, the Chinese courts would find a repeated infringement if the offending product is substantially identical to that of the previous case. Given that whether modified products within the scope of patent protection constitute a repeated violation remains controversial, the parties can agree on whether such a circumstance is mandatory in the event of repeated infringement in the transaction contract. There are a few examples of the outcome for the development of the transaction agreement and the development of the compensation clause. It should be noted that the finding of a repeat offender is a matter for the Tribunal.“ Nevertheless, a rights holder could continue to use Article 28 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People`s Court on several issues relating to the application of the patent infringement law to seek judicial authorization for the award of the amount of the damage, which was established in accordance with the conditions agreed by the right holder and the offender in an infringement action with respect to the amount of the damage or the method of calculation, provided that the court finds a violation.