On March 26, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Sixth Batch of Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry (人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例（第六批）). Typical cases are issued to guide lower courts, unify judgment standards, and promote policy goals. They serve as “soft law” to fill gaps in legislation, harmonize decisions nationwide, and align judicial outcomes with specific government policies.
A translation of the SPC’s explanation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
1. The “NP01154” Corn Plant Variety Infringement Case [Heng XX Company v. Jin XX Company: Dispute over Infringement of Plant Variety Rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2024) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 337
[Basic Case Facts]
Heng Company holds the exclusive right to implement the new maize variety “NP01154” involved in this case. Heng Company claims that the seven hybrid maize varieties, including “Zhengpinyu 491,” produced and sold by Jin Company were all produced using “NP01154” as a parent without permission, and therefore filed a lawsuit in court. In the first instance, Heng Company submitted four test reports proving that the parent “YZ320” of the accused infringing variety differed from “NP01154” by 1 locus, based on which it argued that the seven varieties were infringing varieties. Jin Company submitted test report No. 2994, claiming that 4 out of the 5 additional loci tested were different, based on which it argued that the two were different varieties. The court of first instance accepted test report No. 2994 submitted by Jin Company, determined that the parent “YZ320” of the accused infringing variety was a different variety from the authorized variety “NP01154,” and dismissed all of Heng Company’s claims. Heng Company appealed, arguing that Jin Company infringed and should bear the liability for infringement damages.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that expanding the detection sites for additional testing must be based on the premise that the difference between the tested sample and the control sample is less than but close to the critical value, that the additional testing sites have sufficient genetic polymorphism and stability, that there is a strong correlation between the associated genes and the phenotype, that the reliability of this association has been fully scientifically assessed and verified, and that a functional marker closely linked to the trait has been developed. Test Report No. 2994 submitted by Jin Company was issued without meeting the prerequisites for expanding the detection sites and therefore lacks probative value. The evidence in this case proves that the parents (paternal parents) of the seven allegedly infringing hybrid maize varieties are identical to the authorized varieties. Jin Company’s actions constitute infringement of the “NP01154” variety right; Jin Company’s actions were intentional infringement, involving seven approved hybrid varieties, lasting for five years, and covering an infringing production area of 8243.4 mu, constituting a serious infringement, and punitive damages should be applied. The final second-instance judgment overturned the first-instance judgment, ordering Jin Company to immediately cease infringing on the variety right of “NP01154” and to compensate Heng Company for economic losses of over 53.347 million RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 200,000 RMB. The second-instance judgment also detailed the measures for Jin Company to cease infringement: first, to cease using “YZ320” and other parent lines to produce the seven approved hybrid maize seeds and to cease selling the infringing seeds; second, to eliminate the reproductive activity of the infringing seeds under the supervision of the court or in the presence of Heng Company; and third, to notify its shareholders, affiliated companies, and other relevant parties of this judgment and the order to cease infringement, and to require them to sign a non-infringement commitment. At the same time, the second-instance judgment clarified that if Jin Company fails to fulfill the above three obligations within the specified period, it shall pay late payment penalties of 100,000 RMB, 50,000 RMB, and 20,000 yuan per RMB, respectively.
[Typical Significance]
This case, by accurately determining the nature of the conduct and applying punitive damages in accordance with the law, conveys a clear judicial orientation towards strengthening intellectual property protection. For the first time, it explicitly clarifies the conditions for expanding the testing sites when using molecular markers to determine variety identity, providing guidance on how to examine the necessity and scientific validity of such expanded testing sites. Furthermore, by detailing the specific requirements for ceasing infringement and clarifying the standards for calculating late payment penalties for non-monetary obligations, the judgment ensures timely and comprehensive enforcement, enabling parties to both win their cases and realize their gains promptly, thus truly achieving strong protection for rights holders.
2. The “Nongmai 88” wheat plant variety infringement case [ XX Feng Seed Industry Company v. Zheng XX, Cheng XX, Zhang XX, and Lü XX, a dispute over infringement of plant variety rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2025) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 417
[Basic Case Facts]
Feng Seed Industry Company is the variety rights holder of the new wheat variety “Nongmai 88”. Starting in 2022, Zheng and Cheng collaborated to produce and sell “Nongmai 88” seeds packaged in “white bags”. To obtain evidence of infringement, an agent of Feng Seed Industry Company contacted Zheng and, under Zheng’s instructions, purchased 30,000 jin (15,000 kg) of “Nongmai 88” seeds packaged in “white bags” from Cheng, paying 51,900 RMB. The purchased seeds were stored in a warehouse owned by Zhang and Lü. Feng Seed Industry Company filed a lawsuit, claiming that Zheng and Cheng’s production and sale of infringing seeds, and Zhang and Lü’s provision of storage space constituted joint infringement. The company requested the court to order the four defendants to cease infringement, jointly compensate for economic losses of 2 million RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 58,900 RMB, and also claimed punitive damages. Cheng argued that he was merely entrusted by Zheng to deliver the seeds, which were “Zhenmai 15” commercial grain, and that Feng Seed Industry Company was using a sting operation to gather evidence. Zhang and Lü argued that they only lent their warehouse to Cheng free of charge to store the grain and did not participate in the infringement. The court of first instance found Zheng and Cheng guilty of joint infringement and did not support Feng Seed Industry Company’s claims against Zhang and Lü , nor its punitive damages claims. The court, at its discretion, ordered Zheng and Cheng to pay 300,000 RMB in economic losses and reasonable expenses. Both Feng Seed Industry Company and Cheng appealed. Feng Seed Industry Company argued that Zhang and Lü should bear joint liability and that punitive damages should apply to this case; Cheng argued that he did not infringe and should not bear any liability for compensation.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that according to the Seed Law amended in 2021, the production, sale, and storage of propagation materials of authorized varieties for the purpose of committing infringement all constitute direct infringement; in joint infringement, where the damage is caused by a combination of intentional and negligent acts, the perpetrators should bear corresponding joint and several liability; for intentional infringement of plant variety rights with serious circumstances, punitive damages should be applied, while negligent infringers should only bear joint and several liability for the compensatory damages. Cheng and Zheng had been cooperating since 2022, dividing the work to produce, sell, and store “Nongmai 88” seeds packaged in “white bags,” demonstrating clear subjective intent. Furthermore, the sale of infringing seeds in unlabeled packaging, the long duration of the infringement, and the large quantity sold constituted serious circumstances, warranting triple punitive damages; Zhang, having previously engaged in seed-related business and possessing professional knowledge, along with Lü, as the warehouse owners, failed to fulfill their due diligence obligations regarding the long-term storage of seeds without legal labels, exhibiting gross negligence. Objectively, they provided storage space for the infringement, constituting joint infringement with Zheng and Cheng , but should only bear joint and several liability for the compensatory damages. Accordingly, the second instance court reversed the original judgment and ordered Zheng, Cheng, Zhang, and Lü to immediately cease the infringement. Zheng and Cheng were ordered to compensate Feng Seed Industry Company for economic losses of 1.575 million RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 58,900 RMB. Zhang and Lü were ordered to bear joint and several liability for 525,000 RMB of the compensation.
[Typical Significance]
Prior to the latest amendment to the Seed Law, according to relevant judicial interpretations, Article 1169 of the Civil Code could be applied to classify the provision of storage conditions as aiding and abetting a tort. This case, however, applies the amended Article 28 of the Seed Law, directly determining that the storage provider, producer, and seller constitute joint tortfeasors, thus realizing the legislative purpose of expanding the scope of protection in the Seed Law. It also clarifies that when several persons jointly commit torts, in cases of serious infringement, the person who intentionally infringes may bear punitive damages, while the person who negligently infringes may bear joint and several liability for compensatory damages, ensuring that liability is commensurate with subjective fault and the nature of the act.
3. The “Jihong 6” Rice Variety Infringement Case [Quan XX Seed Industry Co., Ltd. v. Fu XX Seed Subsidiary Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of plant variety rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2025) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 686
[Basic Case Facts]
Quan Seed Industry Co., Ltd. acquired the plant variety rights to “Jihong 6” rice through transfer. Quan Seed Industry Co., Ltd. discovered that “Fuxia 3,” produced and sold by Fu Seed Subsidiary, was suspected to be “Jihong 6.” Therefore, Quan Seed Industry Co., Ltd. purchased the seeds from Fu Seed Subsidiary with notarization and unilaterally commissioned the Jianghan University Testing Center to conduct a variety authenticity test. The test results showed that the two varieties had 0 different loci and 100% genetic similarity, indicating they were extremely similar or identical varieties. Quan Seed Industry Co., Ltd. sued in court, requesting that Fu Seed Subsidiary cease infringement and compensate for economic losses of 1 million RMB. Fu Seed Subsidiary argued that “Fuxia 3” was jointly bred by them and was approved earlier than “Jihong 6,” thus enjoying prior use rights; the test report in question was unilaterally commissioned, and the evidence collection procedure was flawed, therefore it could not be used as the basis for the judgment, and their actions did not constitute infringement. The court of first instance determined that the accused infringing seeds and “Jihong 6” were the same variety, and that Fu Seed Subsidiary’s unauthorized production and sale constituted infringement. The court, at its discretion, awarded 180,000 RMB in compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection, and did not support Quan Seed Industry Co., Ltd.’s claim for punitive damages. Quansheng Seed Industry Company appealed, arguing that the first-instance compensation amount was too low and that the failure to apply punitive damages was clearly inappropriate, and requested that the compensation be changed to 1 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that Fuxiang Seed Company, as one of the applicants and breeders of the “Fuxia 3” variety, had a clear understanding of the characteristics of the variety. However, it labeled the packaging of the allegedly infringing seeds with information inconsistent with its own approved variety and highly consistent with the characteristics of “Jihong 6,” demonstrating clear intent to infringe. Its actions violated mandatory regulations on seed labeling, concealing the true information of the infringing seeds and evading seed industry supervision through counterfeiting. The infringement had continued for five years with a stable production and sales scale, resulting in significant harm, thus meeting the criteria for “serious circumstances” and warranting punitive damages. Furthermore, the court found the amount of damages determined in the first instance judgment lacked reasonable basis. The base for calculating damages could be reasonably inferred from the profits gained from the infringement, and considering the overall circumstances of the infringement, double punitive damages were applicable. Therefore, the court revised the judgment, increasing the damages to a total of 506,000 RMBfor economic losses and reasonable expenses.
[Typical Significance]
This case clearly demonstrates that acts of infringing plant variety rights through trademark counterfeiting are essentially deliberate acts of counterfeiting, where the label does not match the actual seed. This directly establishes the subjective intent to infringe upon plant variety rights. Such trademark counterfeiting not only disrupts the order of seed industry production and operation but also encroaches on the legitimate market share of variety right holders and may pose risks to agricultural production. This meets the criteria of “serious circumstances” as stipulated in Article 72, Paragraph 3 of the Seed Law, and punitive damages can be applied accordingly. This case fully reflects the people’s courts’ clear judicial stance of increasing the punishment for trademark counterfeiting and strengthening the protection of plant variety rights.
4. “Jijia” Tomato Plant Variety Infringement Case [Beijing Shi XX Seedling Company v. Ningxia Hong XX Company, Ningxia Nan XX Agricultural Company, Northwest Tian XX Agricultural Company, and Guangdong Jin XX Agricultural Company: Dispute over Infringement of Plant Variety Rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 3168
[Basic Case Facts]
Beijing Shi Seedling Company is the holder of the “Jijia” tomato variety rights, with the application date being August 27, 2018, and the authorization date being December 31, 2020. In September 2020, Ningxia Hong Seedling Company, for the purpose of domestic sales, contacted and organized Beijing Jin Company (a third party) to import “Jiana” tomato seeds. From October to November 2020, Beijing Jin Company contacted Guangdong Jin Agricultural Company to handle import matters. On December 25, 2020, Guangdong Jin Agricultural Company imported “JIANA3” tomato seeds from a company in South Korea and delivered them to Beijing Jin Company on December 28 of the same year. After obtaining the allegedly infringing seeds with the assistance of the aforementioned companies, Ningxia Hong Seedling Company independently organized the repackaging, repackaging the imported “JIANA3” tomato seeds into “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3,” and selling them through Ningxia Nan Agricultural Company, Northwest Tian Agricultural Company, and others. In March 2021, Beijing Shi Seedling Company purchased “Jiana No. 1” seeds from Ningxia Nan Agricultural Company. Testing revealed that “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3” were similar to “Jijia”. Beijing Shi Seedling Company sued in court, requesting an injunction to stop the infringement and joint compensation from the four defendants for economic losses of 8.1 million RMB and reasonable expenses of 88,549.46 RMB. The court of first instance found Ningxia Hong Seedling Company, Ningxia Nan Agricultural Company, Northwest Tian Agricultural Company, and Guangdong Jin Agricultural Company guilty of infringement, ordering the aforementioned defendants to cease infringement and bear corresponding civil liability. All parties appealed the first-instance judgment. Beijing Shi Seedling Company appealed, arguing that the infringement was egregious and the compensation amount was too low; Ningxia Hong Seedling Company and others appealed, denying infringement or claiming no intent to infringe, legal seed source, and excessive compensation.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that if a plant variety right had not been granted in China at the time of importation but had been authorized at the time of sale, subsequent sales of propagation material of that variety must be with the consent of the variety right holder; otherwise, it constitutes infringement. The importation of the infringing seeds in question occurred on December 25, 2020, earlier than the authorization date of the “Jijia” variety right. However, the repackaging, sales, and seedling cultivation by Ningxia Hong Seed Company and other parties all occurred after the variety right authorization and without the permission of the variety right holder. Therefore, the subsequent sales and related assistance meet the elements constituting infringement of plant variety rights and should be legally recognized as infringement. Ningxia Hong Seed Company, as the organizer of the import and the main distributor of the infringing seeds, knowingly sold tomato varieties that require registration as non-major crops under the names “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3,” demonstrating subjective intent to infringe. Ningxia Nan Agricultural Company has an equity relationship with Ningxia Hong Seed Company, and Northwest Tian Agricultural Company failed to provide evidence of the legal source of its seedlings and the reasonableness of the transaction price; its defense of legal source is therefore invalid. Guangdong Jin Agricultural Company, as the importer, failed to quarantine and test the imported seeds according to quarantine approval requirements, failing to fulfill its due diligence obligations and objectively facilitating subsequent infringing sales by others; therefore, it should bear corresponding responsibility. All parties constituted joint infringement. Considering the market value of the varieties involved, the circumstances of the infringement, and reasonable expenses for rights protection, the second instance court reversed the original judgment, ordering Ningxia Hong Seed Company to bear primary responsibility, compensating Beijing Shi Seedling Company for economic losses of 500,000 RMBand reasonable expenses of 50,000 RMB. Ningxia Nan Agricultural Company and others bear joint and several liability within a certain amount.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies the territorial rules for the protection of plant variety rights, determining that imports occurring before the authorization of the variety right but sales occurring after the authorization still constitute infringement, thus improving the rules for determining infringement in the seed industry’s import process. Simultaneously, it clarifies the division of responsibilities among joint infringers in the upstream and downstream of the seed industry, identifying the entities organizing imports and leading repackaging and sales as bearing primary responsibility, while entities involved in related sales, seedling cultivation, and import processes bear joint and several liability according to their degree of fault, refining the standards for the allocation of responsibility among infringing entities in the seed industry’s infringement chain.
5. The “Puri A280” Apple Plant Variety Infringement Case [Ai Company v. Ming Company: Dispute over Infringement of Plant Variety Rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 1542
[Basic Case Facts]
Company Ai is the exclusive licensee of the new apple variety “Puri A280” and has obtained the right to enforce the variety rights granted by the right holder. Company Ai, through notarized evidence collection, extracted branches and leaves of “Longwei” apples from the orchard of Company Ming. The samples were identified as potentially identical to “Puri A280”. Company Ai sued Company Ming, requesting the court to order Company Ming to cease infringement, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 3 million RMB, and request continued payment of variety rights usage fees of 2,500 RMB per mu per year until the date of cessation of planting. Company Ming argued that the testing report in question was procedurally illegal and the source of the samples was unclear. They claimed that the “Longwei” they planted was actually “Yunyin Apple No. 2,” cultivated by a certain horticultural research institute and holding a “Variety Identification Certificate.” This variety predates the application date for the “Puri A280” variety rights, possessing a legal source and prior rights; therefore, their planting did not constitute infringement. The court of first instance ruled that the “Variety Identification Certificate” was a certificate of rights, and that the seedlings planted by Ming’s company were of legal origin and without subjective intent; therefore, its actions did not constitute infringement, and the court dismissed all of Ai’s company’s claims. Ai’s company appealed, arguing that the “Variety Identification Certificate” was not a certificate of rights, and that the horticultural research institute had breached its contract by obtaining and promoting “Puri A280” propagation material; therefore, Ming’s company’s defense of non-infringement was untenable.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that “Longwei” and “Puri A280” were identical; apples are asexually propagated woody plants, and the large-scale planting of the allegedly infringing seedlings by Ming Company for commercial purposes should be considered as the production and propagation of authorized variety propagation materials. “Yunyin Apple No. 2” was obtained by a horticultural research institute after being permitted by a related party of Ai Company to trial-plant “Puri A280,” which violated a confidentiality agreement, disclosed and propagated it, and was named through variety identification; therefore, its propagation material source was illegal. Yunnan Province’s non-major crop variety identification system is merely an administrative management tool, and the “Variety Identification Certificate” is not a civil right certificate and cannot be used to oppose legitimate plant variety rights. As the producer and propagator, Ming Company directly carried out the production and propagation of authorized variety propagation materials, which did not meet the requirements for applying the legitimate source defense, and its legitimate source defense was untenable. Considering the scale of the infringement, the variety’s growth cycle, and economic value, the court revised the judgment, ordering Ming Company to compensate Ai Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 538,750 RMB, and to pay subsequent variety right usage fees at a rate of 8 RMB per plant per year.
[Typical Significance]
This case upholds the principle of good faith protection, clarifying that illegally obtaining and cultivating propagating materials of authorized varieties before the application date cannot create prior rights that can oppose variety rights. Furthermore, considering the general rule that the probability of different researchers independently breeding the same variety is extremely low, it clarifies that prior rights defenses are generally difficult to apply in the field of new plant varieties, thus cutting off the possibility for infringers to evade legal sanctions on this basis.
6. The “Qihuang 34” soybean plant variety infringement case [Sheng XX Company v. XX xin Company and Kong XX, a dispute over infringement of plant variety rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2025) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 199
[Basic Case Facts]
Sheng Company is the exclusive licensee of the new soybean variety “Qihuang 34”. After obtaining notarized evidence, Sheng Company purchased 200 jin (approximately 100 catties) of soybean seeds labeled “Qihuang 34” from Kong in the warehouse of Xin Company, paying 800 RMB. The seeds were later identified as potentially identical to “Qihuang 34”. Sheng Company sued in court, requesting that Xin Company and Kong cease infringement, compensate for economic losses of 800,000 RMB, and cover reasonable expenses of 19,038 RMB. Xin Company argued that the seeds in question were stored and sold by Kong personally, and were unrelated to the company, therefore it was not a proper defendant. Kong argued that Sheng Company was entrapping him, that his sales activities had already been administratively punished, and that the compensation claimed by Sheng Company was excessive. The court of first instance found Kong guilty of infringement, but did not find Xin Company involved in the infringement, nor supported punitive damages. Applying statutory damages, the court ordered Kong to pay 50,000 RMB in economic losses and 12,000 RMB in reasonable expenses. Dissatisfied, Sheng Company appealed, arguing that Xin Company and Kong joint infringed and should bear joint and several liability, and that the two defendants’ infringement was serious and should be subject to punitive damages.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that the transaction in question occurred within the business premises of Xin Company. Kong XX gen, the then legal representative of Xin Company, and Kong jointly received the seed buyers, introduced the varieties, and completed the transaction. Kong gen’s actions constituted official duties on behalf of Xin Company. Xin Company and Kong formed a joint intent to infringe and acted in concert, constituting joint infringement and should bear joint and several liability. Xin Company, as a professional enterprise with seed production and sales qualifications, knowingly participated in the sale of the “Qihuang 34” variety without authorization. Kong , lacking relevant qualifications, sold infringing seeds without authorization. The subjective intent of the two defendants was obvious. Furthermore, their sale of unlabeled, untraceable “white-bag” seeds, stored in a large warehouse, met the criteria for “serious circumstances” and should be subject to double punitive damages. The profit from the infringing seeds could be determined by combining the price difference between the infringing soybean seeds and commercial soybean grains, and the total sales volume could be determined by referring to the warehouse storage scale. The calculated profit from the infringement was 200,000 RMB. Accordingly, the second instance court reversed the original judgment and ordered Xin Company and Kong to immediately cease the infringement and jointly compensate Sheng Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding its rights, totaling 412,000 RMB.
[Typical Significance]
This case addresses the phenomenon of infringers evading liability by claiming personal actions or temporary storage, precisely resolving the difficulty in identifying infringing parties in the seed industry, legally recognizing joint infringement and applying punitive damages; at the same time, it clarifies that when determining damages for infringement based on profits from the infringement of plant variety rights, the operating profit can be calculated by deducting the unit price of commercial grain from the unit price of the infringing seeds, appropriately increasing the difference, and then calculating the operating profit. This provides a useful reference path for calculating the amount of compensation for infringement of new plant varieties.
7. The “WG646” Maize Plant Variety Infringement Case [Dispute over Infringement of Plant Variety Rights between Wu XX Company and He XX Company]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2024) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 763
[Basic Case Facts]
Wu Company is the holder of the plant variety rights for the new corn variety “WG646”. Wu Company discovered that He Company was illegally propagating corn seeds using “WG646” on over 500 mu (approximately 33 hectares) of land in Jingtai County, Baiyin City, Gansu Province, without its permission. Wu Company subsequently sued He Company, demanding that He Company cease the infringement, compensate for economic losses of 1 million RMB, and cover reasonable expenses of 60,000 RMB. After applying to the court of first instance for evidence preservation and conducting authenticity testing on the preserved infringing seeds and the authorized variety “WG646”, the number of comparison sites was 40, with 1 difference site, concluding that they were similar varieties. He Company argued that the propagation material used on the allegedly infringing plot was “HJ8702”, which is a different variety from “WG646”, therefore it did not infringe on Company Wu Company’s plant variety rights. He Company also applied to the court of first instance for evidence preservation and conducted expanded site testing on the preserved samples and “WG646”. The number of compared sites was 2, and the number of differing sites was 2. Simultaneously, the preserved samples and “HJ8702” underwent authenticity testing, with 40 compared sites and 0 differing sites, concluding that they were extremely similar or identical. The court of first instance determined that the accused infringing propagation material differed from “WG646” by 3 sites, and that the parent plants used by He Company in producing hybrids were different varieties from “WG646” and did not constitute infringement. Therefore, the court dismissed Wu Company’s lawsuit. Wu Company appealed, arguing that the court of first instance had erred in identifying the parent plant of the accused infringing seeds as the “HJ8702” variety.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that if the variety right holder has evidence proving that the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety have substantially the same characteristics, it can be preliminarily determined that they belong to the same variety; if the accused infringer claims that they do not belong to the same variety, they should provide rebuttal evidence; as for whether the accused infringing variety is another authorized variety, in principle, it is not directly related to the infringement determination in this case. In this case, determining whether He Company’s seed production activities constituted an infringement of the “WG646” variety right does not require examining whether the accused infringing variety is “HJ8702”. The test report submitted by Wu Company, which was submitted for court preservation, showed that testing 40 core loci and having 1 differential locus was sufficient to conclude that the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety “WG646” were “similar”; the loci selected by He Company for expanded loci testing were not among the 40 core loci stipulated in the SSR marker method for maize variety identification, and were arbitrarily selected non-standard loci, which did not comply with the relevant standards and norms that should be followed for additional testing loci, and therefore the additional testing report had no probative value. The existing evidence is sufficient to prove that He Company infringed on the plant variety right of “WG646”. Therefore, the judgment was changed to order He Company to cease infringement and compensate Wu Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling RMB 1.03 million.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that if a variety rights holder has evidence proving that the accused infringing variety shares the same characteristics as the authorized variety, it can be preliminarily determined that they belong to the same variety. If the infringer fails to provide rebuttal evidence and merely argues that the accused infringing variety is another authorized variety, this does not directly negate the identity of the accused infringing variety with the authorized variety, and such defenses are generally not supported. This judgment blocks the path for accused infringers to evade liability by misrepresenting the product, providing strong protection for variety rights holders to better safeguard their rights.
8. “Angel Red” Pomegranate Plant Variety Infringement Case [Fruit Tree Research Institute v. Cheng XX Business Department, Li XX, and Taobao Company, a dispute over infringement of plant variety rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2024) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 925
[Basic Case Facts]
Fruit tree research institute, the rights holder of the new pomegranate variety “Angel Red,” discovered that Cheng Business Department was selling pomegranate seedlings labeled “Angel Red” on the Taobao platform under the name “Shandong Qing XX Fruit Tree Farmers’ Assistance Store” without authorization. The institute commissioned a notary office to preserve evidence of the purchase process and delivery, and filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order Cheng Business Department to cease production, propagation, and sale of infringing seedlings and to inactivate the infringing seedlings; to order Taobao Company to cease providing platform services and delete the infringing links; and to order Cheng Business Department, investor Li , and Taobao Company to jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200,000 RMB. Cheng Business Department, a sole proprietorship invested in by Li , not only displayed photos of its pomegranate propagation base and claimed “direct sales from the base,” but its customer service also admitted that the seedlings came from its own orchard, without providing evidence of the legal source of the seedlings or offering a reasonable explanation for their origin. The court of first instance ruled that Cheng Business Department only committed the act of selling infringing products, ordering it to cease sales and pay 10,000 RMB in compensation, and dismissed the research institute’s other claims. The fruit tree research institute appealed, arguing that the first instance court failed to recognize the propagation activity, that the determination of Li’s liability was incorrect, and that the amount of compensation was too low.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that Cheng’s online store’s product details page displayed photos of its propagation base, and its customer service representatives admitted the seedlings originated from “their own orchard.” Furthermore, as a professional seedling dealer, Cheng failed to provide evidence of the seedlings’ legal origin. Combined with the fact that Cheng possessed propagation qualifications, this was sufficient to establish that Cheng had engaged in the production and propagation of infringing seedlings. “Angel Red” is an asexually propagated variety; merely ceasing sales was insufficient to prevent the spread of infringement. The court ordered the infringer to inactivate the infringing seedlings and take targeted measures according to their growth stages. Based on the evidence in this case, the fixed license fee could be calculated as an annual license fee of 50,000 RMB. Considering the circumstances of the infringement, the value of the variety, and reasonable expenses for rights protection, the compensation amount should be determined as three times the license fee. Therefore, the second instance court reversed the original judgment and ordered Cheng’s business department to immediately cease the production, propagation, and sale of “Angel Red” pomegranate propagation materials, and to inactivate the infringing seedlings within 15 days; Cheng’s business department was ordered to compensate the fruit tree research institute for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 150,000 RMB; and Li, as the investor of a sole proprietorship, was ordered to supplement the debt with his personal property when Cheng’s business department’s assets were insufficient to pay the aforementioned debts.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that if the source of infringing seedlings cannot be verified, and the infringer has the ability to reproduce and claims to have a breeding base, the fact of production and reproduction infringement can be determined based on the evidence on file. It refines the standards and specific methods for inactivating infringing seedlings propagated asexually, establishing the core principle of “complete loss of regenerative capacity” and differentiating treatment based on crop growth stages, thus preventing the further spread of infringing seedlings at the source. It accurately defines the supplementary liability of investors in sole proprietorships, clarifying the legal boundaries between supplementary liability and joint liability. This judgment is conducive to strengthening the crackdown on source-level infringement in the seed industry and promoting the refinement of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry.
9. The “WH818” Maize Plant Variety Infringement Case [Heng XX Company v. Bo XX Company: Dispute over Infringement of Plant Variety Rights]
First Instance: Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court (2022) 琼73知民初40号
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2024) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 194
[Basic Case Facts]
Heng Company is one of the variety rights holders of the new corn variety “WH818” and has been authorized by another variety rights holder to pursue legal action independently. Bo Company is a company with a license to produce and sell corn; the trademarks “Bohong” and “Weifeng” were both registered by Bo Company. Heng Company discovered that the “Bo Hong Cai Tian Nuo” and “Wei Feng Cai Tian Nuo” corn varieties produced and sold by Bo Company were hybrids propagated using the “WH818” corn variety as a parent. Therefore, after unilaterally commissioning testing, Heng Company filed a lawsuit in court, requesting Bo Company to immediately cease the infringement and compensate for economic losses of 500,000 RMB and reasonable expenses incurred in protecting its rights of 20,000 RMB. During the trial, Heng Company applied to the court for a seed kinship test. The testing agency, after testing “WH818” and “Bo Hong Cai Tian Nuo” and “Wei Feng Cai Tian Nuo,” concluded that both types of corn seeds were suspected to be related to “WH818.” Bo Company denied the test results, but did not provide information on the parent seeds used to produce the allegedly infringing seeds “Bo Hong Cai Tian Nuo” and “Wei Feng Cai Tian Nuo”.
[Judgment Result]
The Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court, in its first instance judgment, held that since Bo Company used its registered trademark on the allegedly infringing variety and included its company name and other information on the packaging, and Bo Company failed to fully explain the source of the allegedly infringing variety, it was presumed to be the producer of the allegedly infringing variety. Considering that Bo Company failed to provide evidence of the parental origin of the allegedly infringing seeds, it was determined that its unauthorized use of the “WH818” variety to produce and sell the allegedly infringing seeds constituted infringement. Therefore, the court ordered Bo Company to cease infringement and compensate Heng Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200,000 RMB. Bo Company appealed the first instance judgment. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case, by referencing the parentage test results, reasonably reduced the burden of proof on the parent variety rights holders by lowering the standard of proof and using factual presumptions. This provides a useful reference for handling disputes over infringement of parent variety rights in hybrid crops in judicial practice and strengthens the full-chain judicial protection of plant variety rights.
10. Administrative Penalty Case Regarding the New Rice Variety “R900” [Ke XX Company v. Ninghua County People’s Government and Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau: Administrative Penalty Case Regarding New Rice Variety]
First Instance: Intermediate People’s Court of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province (2024) 闽01行初110号
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2025) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Final Judgment No. 195
[Basic Case Facts]
Yuan’s company is the holder of the new rice variety right for “R900” and has never authorized Ke’s company to use this variety. In 2021, Ke’s company commissioned the production of “Ke Liang You 9218” rice seeds in Ninghua County, Fujian Province. The parent variety of “Ke Liang You 9218” was suspected of infringing on the “R900” variety right, and Yuan’s company reported this to the agricultural authorities. An investigation by the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau revealed that in June 2021, Ke’s company commissioned a local cooperative to produce seeds on 370 mu (approximately 25 hectares) of land. 75,800 kilograms of infringing seeds were seized. SSR marker testing and field planting comparisons showed that the parent variety of the infringing seeds was extremely similar to or identical to “R900”. In November 2021, Ke’s company signed a settlement agreement with Yuan’s company, admitting infringement and paying 2.8 million yuan in compensation. Yuan’s company issued a letter of understanding. In March 2024, the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau imposed an administrative penalty of 18.192 million RMB on Ke Company. After Ke Company applied for administrative reconsideration and the decision was upheld, it filed a lawsuit, requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision and the administrative reconsideration decision on the grounds that it had no subjective fault, had reached a civil settlement, and that the administrative law enforcement procedure was illegal.
[Judgment Result]
The Intermediate People’s Court of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, held in the first instance that the penalty decision and related review decision of the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau were legal, the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, and the procedures were legal, and should be upheld. The court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Ke Company. Ke Company appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in the second instance, held that determining whether an infringement harms the public interest requires comprehensive consideration of factors such as the scale of infringing seed production, the degree of disruption to the seed industry’s production and operation order, and the potential impact on national agricultural seed security. In this case, Ke Company, without the permission of the variety right holder, entrusted others to use the “R900” variety as the male parent to produce hybrid rice seeds, infringing on the “R900” plant variety right. This fact was supported by two expert opinions and Ke Company’s admission in the settlement agreement. Ke Company’s seed production scale was large, and its actions harmed the public interest, including the seed industry market order, meeting the conditions for administrative penalties stipulated in the Seed Law. Administrative liability and civil liability belong to different legal liability categories. Although Ke Company and Yuan Company have reached a settlement, the assumption of civil liability cannot automatically become a reason to exempt or replace administrative liability. The Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, taking into account the circumstances of the violation and the mitigating circumstances, imposed a fine of five times the legally mandated minimum, which is in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that civil settlement cannot preclude administrative penalties based on public interest, but can be considered as a mitigating circumstance. It also refines the judgment of “public interest,” which is of reference value for supervising and supporting seed industry administrative law enforcement and implementing the principle of proportionality between offense and penalty.
