阅读提示：

1、调解书中对需销毁的侵权模具应明确具体，包括模具所处地点、规格、型号、数量等具体情况；

2、调解协议中的违约赔偿条款可作为二次诉讼赔偿的依据，执行法官执行程序中无法直接认定是否实施侵害专利行为，是否构成侵权以及侵犯何种专利权，应通过审判程序进行实体审查后确定。

【案号】

一审：

浙江省台州市中级人民法院（2014）浙台知民初字第121号/122号（2015年3月11日）

执行：

浙江省台州市中级人民法院（2015）浙台执民字第179号/181号

执行异议：

浙江省台州市中级人民法院（2015）浙台执异字第7号/8号

（2015年10月20日）

【案情与裁判】

卡迪尔股份公司是一家意大利的国际知名家具生产企业，该公司分别于2008年9月19日和2009年12月28日向国家知识产权局申请了两款椅子的侵害外观设计专利，并分别于 2009年10月07日和2009年10月28日获得授权（ZL200830146093.4、ZL200830146092.X）。TDH公司是台州一家本土休闲家具生产商、TDN公司是TDH公司的关联公司，2013年12月3日，卡迪尔股份公司通过公证在TDN公司的阿里巴巴平台向TDH公司购买了多款椅子，并公证了TDH公司公司网站上相应产品图片。卡迪尔公司以其所购买的TDH公司两款产品已落入了其专利号为ZL200830146093.4、ZL200830146092.X的外观设计专利保护范围为由，分别向台州市中级人民法院提起了诉讼，要求：一、TDH和TDN公司停止一切侵犯上述两专利的行为；二、TDH和TDN公司赔偿卡迪尔公司经济损失及为调查、制止侵权行为所支出的合理费用（各）50万元。

后经台州市中级人民法院主持调解，双方自愿就两案（2014浙台知民初字第121号/122号）于2015年2月12日共同达成如下调解协议：一、TDH公司、TDN公司承诺尊重卡迪尔股份公司拥有的知识产权；二、自本协议生效之日起，TDH公司、TDN公司不再制造、销售、许诺销售落入涉案的卡迪尔股份公司外观设计专利ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X的产品，并且，自本协议生效之日起7日内，在卡迪尔股份公司代理人的监督下，TDH公司、TDN公司销毁这些产品的全部模具；三、在本协议生效后，如果TDH公司、TDN公司违反本协议的约定，继续制造、销售、许诺销售本协议第二条所述的产品，卡迪尔股份公司有权要求TDH公司、TDN公司立即停止侵权，并要求TDH公司、TDN公司连带支付违约金30万元/每款产品；四、在本协议生效之日起7日内，TDH公司、TDN公司应向卡迪尔股份公司指定的账户支付人名币8万元；五、本案案件受理费8800元，减半收取4400元，由TDH公司、TDN公司负担；六、为了使公众了解卡迪尔股份公司正在行使及保护其在中国的知识产权，卡迪尔股份公司有权公开两案的结果及本协议的内容。

该调解协议签订并由法院出具调解书后，卡迪尔股份公司以TDH公司、TDN公司未销毁涉案模具、也未停止许诺销落入卡迪尔股份公司外观设计专利ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X的产品，违反了调解协议第一条以及第三条约定的条款为由，向台州市中级人民法院申请强制执行，并要求TDH公司、TDN公司支付违约金共计60万元，卡迪尔股份公司为此向法院提交了本案调解后的TDH公司网页内容上存在许诺销售侵权产品的公证书作为证据材料，拟证明TDH公司依然存在许诺销售侵害害两款专利权产品的事实。后被执行人TDH公司、TDN公司就此分别提出了书面执行异议。

异议人TDH公司、TDN公司均称：两公司已全部履行了（2014）浙台知民初字第121号民事调解书所确定的履行义务，即已向卡迪尔股份公司支付了8万元人民币，同时也不存在制造、销售（包括出口）、许诺销售落入涉案的外观设计专利号为ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X产品的行为，相关的侵权模具并不存在。卡迪尔股份公司申请执行的事项缺乏事实和法律依据，理由如下：一、关于销毁侵犯卡迪尔股份公司外观设计专利ZL200830146093.4和ZL 200830146092.X的产品模具。首先，民事调解书中双方对异议人是否存在侵害卡迪尔股份公司涉案专利的事实并未予确认，不存在销毁侵权模具问题。其次，双方对异议人的哪款产品以及其相应模具侵害涉案专利也未予明确，若卡迪尔股份公司认为异议人目前所拥有的产品模具存在侵害其专利的，卡迪尔股份公司应当明确是异议人哪款产品模具侵害其专利权，不应笼统的称“所谓侵害其专利权的模具”，对于是否构成侵权的判断属于实体权利判断事项，其也应当另案提起诉讼并由法院判决确认，不应由法院的执行部门进行侵权判断。最后，事实上异议人也从未拥有所谓“侵权模具”，卡迪尔股份公司的该项申请事项事实上也无法执行。二、关于支付因违反民事调解书所产生的违约金人民币30万元（两案共计60万元）。异议人不存在卡迪尔股份公司所称的违约行为，卡迪尔股份公司不能在本案执行程序中直接适用该违约条款。首先，调解书中双方对异议人之前是否存在侵害卡迪尔股份公司专利权的事实并未确认，调解书虽约定与另案合并支付卡迪尔股份公司8万元只是对此前纠纷的了结，违约条款设置目的在于对异议人事后行为的预防，而非直接在本案中进行适用。其次，民事调解书对于异议人的哪款产品侵害涉案专利未予明确，也未明确卡迪尔股份公司提供的网页链接属于应删除的对象，而对于是否构成侵害专利权的判断属于实体审查事项，属于审判程序中解决的问题。即使卡迪尔股份公司认为异议人的许诺销售的产品侵害了其上述专利权，其也应当另案提起诉讼通过判决确认异议人许诺销售的产品已构成侵害其专利权后才考虑是否适用用该违约条款，而不是在前提还尚未确定的情况下便直接申请强制执行。再次，卡迪尔股份公司提供的网页公证也不能证明相应许诺销售产品已落入涉案专利的保护范围，卡迪尔股份公司提供的公证图片仅仅是许诺销售产品的一个角度的视图，不能反映产品的全貌，无法进行全面的侵权比对，自然也无法认定是否构成侵害专利权。最后，异议人提供的链接虽显示为异议人公司网页，但该网页为第三方公司管理，目前该网页也已经删除。综上所述：卡迪尔股份公司在执行标的都还未明确，以及违约情形是否存在的情况下，错误的适用违约条款而直接申请强制执行，缺乏事实和法律依据，请予驳回其执行请求。

申请执行人卡迪尔股份公司辩称，一、民事调解书约定两异议人销毁“这些产品”的全部模具，“这些产品”当然是指涉案产品。因此可以确认在调解协议签署时，两异议人是确认存在这些产品模具的，否则不可能同意在七日内对模具进行“销毁”，故其声称的“并不存在侵权模具”完全站不住脚。另外，两异议人同意对涉案模具进行销毁，是卡迪尔股份公司同意通过调解结案的主要原因。二、根据卡迪尔股份公司提供的公证文书，异议人在调解协议生效后，仍在许诺销售与被控产品名称相同、图片相同、技术参数相同的两款产品，构成了对调解协议的违反，因此，两异议人需要依照调解协议的约定，向卡迪尔股份公司承担相应的赔偿责任。

法院经审理查明：（2014）浙台知民初字第121、122号所涉及的外观设计专利号为ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X，作出的民事调解书中未对案件事实进行认定，调解协议第四项内容即TDH公司、TDN公司向卡迪尔股份公司支付人民币8万元已履行。双方当事人的争议焦点为申请执行人的执行申请是否符合立案执行条件，也即（2014）浙台知民初字第121号民事调解书确定的第二条、第三条内容是否可以强制执行。本案中，申请执行人卡迪尔股份公司申请执行调解协议第二条的内容为两异议人销毁落入涉案专利产品的全部模具，但调解书中并未对需销毁的具体模具予以明确，申请执行人也无法提供有关模具所处地点、规格、型号、数量等具体情况，且两异议人又都认为并不存在需销毁的模具，故该项内容的执行标的不明确，无法强制执行。申请执行人申请执行调解协议第三条两异议人连带支付违约金30万元的理由为两异议人违反约定继续许诺销售落入涉案专利的产品，两异议人对此予以否认。经审查申请执行人提供的公证材料，本院在执行程序中无法直接认定两异议人是否实施了侵权行为，公证网页内容是否构成侵权以及侵犯何种专利权，应通过审判程序进行实体审查后确定。综上，申请执行人申请执行的条件现不具备，已经受理的，应予驳回，裁定驳回申请执行人卡迪尔股份公司的执行申请。

【律师评述】

在侵害专利权纠纷案件中，调解相对于判决可以较快的解决纠纷并达到制止侵权的目的，调解的内容往往是调解各方当事人协商一致便可，法院仅需要确认调解不违反自愿原则以及调解协议的内容不违反法律规定的情况下便可将调解协议在调解书中予以确认，若调解协议约定内容不当，诉讼效果将可能大打折扣。本案中，专利权利人卡迪尔股份公司本希望通过调解的方式快速了结此案以达到既使TDH公司停止侵权和销毁侵权产品的模具，同时也可有效制止和预防TDH公司再次发生侵害其涉案专利权行为的目的，但由于调解协议相关条款设置的不当，使得该调解协议的第二条以及第三条约定的部分内容在某种程度上成为了一种虚置条款，导致调解协议的目的无法有效实现。

究其原因，主要在于原告方具体在设置调解协议的相应条款时对履行的内容未约定明确具体，没能把握侵害专利权（知识产权）纠纷案件中对于是否落入专利保护范围判断（侵权判断）属于审判程序中所要解决的核心事项，该判断具有相当的抽象性和专业性，无法在执行程序中由执行法官来完成判断。根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第四百六十三条第一款规定，当事人申请人民法院执行的生效法律文书应当具备下列条件：“一、权利义务主体明确；二、给付内容明确。”而本案调解协议中所约定的 TDH公司、TDN公司违反“不再制造、销售、许诺销售落入涉案的卡迪尔股份公司外观设计专利ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X的产品”以及“销毁落入落入专利保护范围产品的模具”的行为，由于涉案TDH的产品是否就是落入卡迪尔ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X外观设计专利的产品在调解协议中未予明确，所以若要执行卡迪尔公司的执行请求，执行法官必须要对具体的产品模具以及卡迪尔公司主张的许诺销售产品是否落入卡迪尔ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X外观设计专利的保护范围进行判断，显然这不属于执行程序中要解决的事项，卡迪尔股份公司的执行请求也自然不可能得到支持。

因此，本案中卡迪尔股份公司若能在调解协议中直接明确销毁TDH某款产品的模具，或者在约定“TDH公司、TDN公司不再制造、销售、许诺销售落入涉案的卡迪尔股份公司外观设计专利ZL200830146093.4和ZL200830146092.X的产品”中能进一步明确“包括但不限于TDH的某款产品”，以及具体的的侵权形态，如卡迪尔股份公司执行申请中所主张的具体的网页链接或附随具体的产品图片，TDH公司恐就难以免除该调解协议第三条约定的巨额违约（赔偿）责任。当然，卡迪尔股份公司本也可通过另行诉讼追究TDH公司的相应侵权责任，但根据最高院（2013）民提字第116号判决精神，调解协议中对违约金额的约定仅是“双方就未来发生侵权时权利人因被侵权所受到的损失或侵权人因侵权所获得的利益所预先达成的一种计算方法”，“法院可直接据此确定为损害赔偿的依据”，并非为“权利人与侵权人之间的一种交易合同”。而本案中即使TDH公司在调解协议签订后仍然存在许诺销售的侵权行为也并不足以证明该行为给权利人造成损害或TDH存在获利，因此，卡迪尔股份公司即便另案提起诉讼，法院也不可能直接适用该调解协议第三条约定的30万违约金直接判定TDH公司承担责任。

从本案的处理过程来看，笔者认为在处理知识产权侵权纠纷中设置具体调解协议条款时需注意如下几点事项：一、在设置停止侵权条款时除需约定停止侵犯具体的权利之外，还需明确列明包括的具体侵权形态；二、若存在较多侵权产品及产品模具的情况下，可在经办法官的主持下，由法院、各方当事人现场确认应当销毁的侵权产品的数量，以及相应模具的数量，并在调解协议签署的过程中进行锁定或销毁；三、若涉及需要删除侵权网页内容的问题，必须在调解书中明确相应链接的具体网址；四、在设置侵权方继续发行侵权行为所应当承担的违约金（赔偿金）条款时，如果具体权利人希望通过执行程序直接适用该违约条款的，调解协议中必须明确所禁止发生的具体侵权形态。

Reading tips:

1. The mediation agreement should specify and specify the infringing molds that need to be destroyed, including the location, specifications, model, quantity, and other specific information of the molds;

2. The compensation clause for breach of contract in the mediation agreement can be used as the basis for compensation in the second lawsuit. In the execution procedure, the executing judge cannot directly determine whether the infringement of patents has been committed, whether it constitutes infringement, and what kind of patent rights have been infringed, which should be determined through substantive examination through the trial procedure.

【Case number】

First instance:

Zhejiang Taizhou Intermediate People's Court (2014) Zhetai Zhimin Chu Zi No. 121/122 (March 11, 2015)

Execution:

Zhejiang Taizhou Intermediate People's Court (2015) Zhetai Zhimin Zi No. 179/181

Objection to execution:

Zhejiang Taizhou Intermediate People's Court (2015) Zhetai Zhiyi Zi No. 7/8

(October 20, 2015)

【Case and Judgment】

Cadier Co., Ltd. is an international well-known furniture manufacturer in Italy. It applied to the China National Intellectual Property Administration for the infringement design patent of two chairs on September 19, 2008 and December 28, 2009, and was authorized on October 7, 2009 and October 28, 2009 respectively (ZL20083014693.4, ZL20083014692. X). TDH Company is a local leisure furniture manufacturer in Taizhou, and TDN Company is an affiliated company of TDH Company. On December 3, 2013, Cartier Co., Ltd. purchased multiple chairs from TDH Company through notarization on TDN Company's Alibaba platform, and notarized the corresponding product images on TDH Company's website. Cardiel Company filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, claiming that the two products purchased by TDH Company have fallen within the scope of design patent protection under its patent numbers ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X, demanding that: 1. TDH and TDN Company cease all acts of infringement of the aforementioned two patents; 2、 TDH and TDN companies shall compensate Cartier Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred in investigating and stopping infringement behavior (each) of 500000 yuan.

After being mediated by the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, both parties voluntarily reached the following mediation agreement on February 12, 2015 regarding the two cases (2014 Zhetaizhiminchu Zi No. 121/122): Firstly, TDH Company and TDN Company promise to respect the intellectual property rights owned by Cardiel Co., Ltd; 2、 Starting from the effective date of this agreement, TDH and TDN will no longer manufacture, sell, or promise to sell products that fall under the design patents ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X of Cartier AG, and within 7 days from the effective date of this agreement, under the supervision of Cartier AG's agent, TDH and TDN will destroy all molds of these products; 3、 After the effectiveness of this agreement, if TDH Company and TDN Company violate the provisions of this agreement and continue to manufacture, sell, or promise to sell the products mentioned in Article 2 of this agreement, Cardil Corporation has the right to demand that TDH Company and TDN Company immediately stop the infringement, and demand that TDH Company and TDN Company jointly pay a penalty of 300000 yuan per product; 4、 Within 7 days from the effective date of this agreement, TDH Company and TDN Company shall pay RMB 80000 to the account designated by Cardil AG; 5、 The acceptance fee for this case is 8800 yuan, with a 50% reduction of 4400 yuan charged, which will be borne by TDH and TDN companies; 6、 In order to make the public aware that Cardil Corporation is exercising and protecting its intellectual property rights in China, Cardil Corporation has the right to disclose the results of both cases and the content of this agreement.

After the mediation agreement was signed and a mediation letter was issued by the court, Cardil Corporation applied to the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court for compulsory execution on the grounds that TDH and TDN companies did not destroy the involved molds, nor did they stop promising to sell products belonging to Cardil Corporation's design patents ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X, which violated the provisions of Article 1 and Article 3 of the mediation agreement TDN Company has paid a total of 600000 yuan as a penalty for breach of contract. Cartier Co., Ltd. has submitted a notarized certificate of promise to sell infringing products on the website content of TDH Company after mediation to the court as evidence to prove that TDH Company still has the fact of promise to sell infringing two patented products. Afterwards, the executed parties TDH Company and TDN Company respectively raised written objections to the execution.

The dissenters TDH Company and TDN Company both claim that they have fully fulfilled the performance obligations determined in the (2014) Zhejiang Taiwan Zhimin Chu Zi No. 121 Civil Mediation Letter, that is, they have paid 80000 RMB to Cardiel Co., Ltd., and there is no act of manufacturing, selling (including export), or promising to sell the design patent numbers ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X products involved in the case, and the related infringing molds do not exist. There is a lack of factual and legal basis for the application for execution by Cardil Corporation. The reasons are as follows: 1. Regarding the destruction of product molds that infringe on Cardil Corporation's design patents ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X. Firstly, in the civil mediation agreement, both parties have not confirmed whether the opponent has infringed on the patents involved in the case of Cardiel Corporation, and there is no issue of destroying the infringing molds. Secondly, both parties have not made it clear which product or corresponding mold of the objector infringes on the patent involved. If Cardil AG believes that the product mold currently owned by the objector infringes on its patent, Cardil AG should clarify which product mold of the objector infringes on its patent rights and should not refer to it as a "mold that infringes on its patent rights" in a general manner, The determination of whether infringement is a matter of substantive rights judgment should also be filed in a separate case and confirmed by the court's judgment. The enforcement department of the court should not make infringement judgments. Finally, in fact, the objector has never owned the so-called "infringing mold", and the application matter of Cartier AG cannot be executed in fact. 2、 Regarding the payment of a penalty of 300000 yuan (totaling 600000 yuan in both cases) for violating the civil mediation agreement. The objector does not have any breach of contract as claimed by Cardil AG, and Cardil AG cannot directly apply the breach clause in the execution procedure of this case. Firstly, both parties in the mediation agreement have not confirmed whether the dissenting party has previously infringed on the patent rights of Cardil Co., Ltd. Although the mediation agreement stipulates that the merger and payment of 80000 yuan to Cardil Co., Ltd. with another case is only a settlement of the previous dispute, the purpose of setting the breach clause is to prevent the dissenting party's subsequent behavior, rather than directly applying it in this case. Secondly, the civil mediation agreement did not specify which product of the objector infringed on the patent in question, nor did it specify that the webpage links provided by Cardiel AG belong to the objects that should be deleted. The judgment on whether it constitutes infringement of patent rights is a matter of substantive examination and a problem to be solved in the trial process. Even if Cartier AG believes that the products promised by the objector infringe upon its aforementioned patent rights, it should file a separate lawsuit and confirm through a judgment that the products promised by the objector have infringed upon its patent rights before considering whether to apply the breach clause, rather than directly applying for enforcement if the premise has not yet been determined. Once again, the webpage notarization provided by Cartier AG cannot prove that the corresponding promised products for sale have fallen within the scope of protection of the involved patent. The notarized images provided by Cartier AG are only a perspective view of the promised products for sale, and cannot reflect the full picture of the products. It is not possible to conduct a comprehensive infringement comparison, and naturally, it cannot be determined whether it constitutes infringement of patent rights. Finally, although the link provided by the objector appears as the objector's company webpage, it is managed by a third-party company and has been deleted. In summary, in the absence of clear execution targets and the existence of default situations, Cardil Corporation mistakenly applied the default clause and directly applied for compulsory execution, lacking factual and legal basis. Please reject its execution request.

The applicant for enforcement, Cardiel Corporation, argues that firstly, the civil mediation agreement stipulates that the two dissenters destroy all the molds of "these products", which of course refer to the products involved. Therefore, it can be confirmed that when the mediation agreement was signed, the two dissenters confirmed the existence of these product molds. Otherwise, it is impossible to agree to "destroy" the molds within seven days, so their claim that "there are no infringing molds" is completely unfounded. In addition, the two dissenters agreed to destroy the involved molds, which is the main reason why Cardil AG agreed to resolve the case through mediation. 2、 According to the notarized documents provided by Cardil Corporation, the dissenters still promise to sell two products with the same name, image, and technical parameters as the accused product after the mediation agreement takes effect, which constitutes a violation of the mediation agreement. Therefore, the two dissenters need to bear corresponding compensation responsibilities to Cardil Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the mediation agreement.

After trial, the court found that the design patent numbers ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X involved in the (2014) Zhejiang Taiwan Zhimin Chu Zi No. 121 and 122 were not determined in the civil mediation agreement. The fourth item of the mediation agreement, namely the payment of RMB 80000 by TDH Company and TDN Company to Cartier Co., Ltd., has been fulfilled. The focus of the dispute between both parties is whether the execution application of the applicant meets the conditions for filing and execution, that is, whether the contents of Article 2 and Article 3 determined in the (2014) Zhetai Zhimin Chu Zi No. 121 Civil Mediation Agreement can be enforced. In this case, the applicant for enforcement, Cartier Co., Ltd., applied for the execution of Article 2 of the mediation agreement, which states that the two objectors destroyed all the molds that fell into the patented product in question. However, the mediation agreement did not specify the specific molds that needed to be destroyed, and the applicant for enforcement was unable to provide specific information about the location, specifications, models, quantities, and other details of the molds. Both objectors also believed that there were no molds that needed to be destroyed, Therefore, the execution target of this content is unclear and cannot be enforced. The reason why the applicant for enforcement applies for the execution of Article 3 of the mediation agreement and the two dissenters jointly pay a penalty of 300000 yuan is that the two dissenters violated the agreement and continued to promise to sell products falling into the involved patent, which the two dissenters denied. After reviewing the notarized materials provided by the applicant for enforcement, our court cannot directly determine whether the two dissenters have committed infringement, whether the content of the notarized website constitutes infringement, and what kind of patent rights have been infringed, which should be determined through substantive examination through the trial process. In summary, the conditions for the application for execution by the applicant are currently not met, and if it has been accepted, it should be rejected. The ruling is to reject the execution application of the applicant, Cardil Corporation.

【Lawyer comments】

In the case of patent infringement dispute, mediation can quickly resolve the dispute and stop the infringement compared with the judgment. The content of mediation is often that the parties to the mediation reach consensus. The court only needs to confirm that mediation does not violate the principle of voluntariness and that the content of the mediation agreement does not violate the law. The mediation agreement can be confirmed in the mediation statement. If the content of the mediation agreement is improper, The effectiveness of the lawsuit may be greatly compromised. In this case, the patent holder Cardiel Corporation had hoped to quickly resolve the case through mediation to achieve the goal of not only stopping TDH Company from infringing and destroying the molds of infringing products, but also effectively stopping and preventing TDH Company from infringing on its patent rights again. However, due to the improper provisions of the mediation agreement, The provisions of the second and third articles of the mediation agreement have to some extent become fictitious clauses, resulting in the inability to effectively achieve the purpose of the mediation agreement.

The main reason for this is that the plaintiff did not specify the specific content of the performance when setting the corresponding terms of the mediation agreement, and failed to grasp that the judgment of whether it falls within the scope of patent protection (infringement judgment) in the case of infringement of patent rights (intellectual property) disputes is a core issue to be solved in the trial process. This judgment is quite abstract and professional, and cannot be completed by the executing judge in the execution process. According to Article 463 (1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the effective legal documents that the parties apply for execution by the people's court shall meet the following conditions: "1. The subject of rights and obligations shall be clear; 2. The content of payment shall be clear." TDH Company, as stipulated in the mediation agreement in this case TDN Company has violated the provisions of "no longer manufacturing, selling, or promising to sell products that fall under the design patents ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X of Cartier AG" and "destroying molds that fall within the scope of patent protection". As the mediation agreement did not specify whether the TDH products in question are products that fall under Cartier's design patents ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X, So if we want to execute the execution request of Cartier Company, the execution judge must make a judgment on the specific product mold and whether the promised sales products claimed by Cartier Company fall within the protection scope of Cartier ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X appearance design patents. Obviously, this is not a matter to be solved in the execution procedure, and Cartier Company's execution request cannot be supported naturally.

Therefore, in this case, if Cardil Corporation can directly destroy the mold of a certain product of TDH in the mediation agreement, or if it is agreed that "TDH Corporation and TDN Corporation will no longer manufacture, sell, or promise to sell products belonging to Cardil Corporation's design patents ZL20083014693.4 and ZL20083014692. X", it can further clarify "including but not limited to a certain product of TDH", as well as the specific forms of infringement, If the specific webpage links or product images claimed in the execution application of Cartier Corporation are attached, TDH Corporation may find it difficult to exempt the huge breach of contract (compensation) liability stipulated in Article 3 of the mediation agreement. Of course, Cardil Corporation could have pursued TDH Corporation's corresponding infringement liability through separate litigation, but according to the spirit of the Supreme Court's (2013) Min Ti Zi No. 116 judgment, the agreement on the amount of breach of contract in the mediation agreement is only a calculation method agreed upon by both parties in advance regarding the losses suffered by the rights holder due to infringement or the benefits obtained by the infringer due to infringement in the future, The court can directly determine this as the basis for compensation for damages, not as a transaction contract between the right holder and the infringer. In this case, even if TDH Company still engaged in infringement of promised sales after the signing of the mediation agreement, it is not sufficient to prove that the act caused damage to the rights holder or TDH had profits. Therefore, even if Cardil Corporation filed a separate lawsuit, the court cannot directly apply the 300000 penalty stipulated in Article 3 of the mediation agreement to directly determine TDH Company's liability.

From the perspective of the handling process of this case, the author believes that when setting specific mediation agreement clauses in handling intellectual property infringement disputes, the following points should be noted: firstly, when setting a stop infringement clause, in addition to agreeing to stop infringing specific rights, it is also necessary to clearly list the specific forms of infringement included; 2、 If there are many infringing products and product molds, the court and all parties involved can confirm the quantity of infringing products that should be destroyed and the corresponding number of molds on site under the supervision of the handling judge, and lock or destroy them during the process of signing the mediation agreement; 3、 If there is a need to delete the infringing webpage content, the specific website address of the corresponding link must be specified in the mediation agreement; 4、 When setting the penalty (compensation) clause that the infringing party should bear for continuing to issue the infringing act, if the specific right holder wishes to directly apply the breach clause through the execution procedure, the mediation agreement must specify the specific form of infringement prohibited from occurring.