On June 9, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued the Guidelines for Ascertaining Technical Facts in Cases Involving New Plant Varieties (人民法院审理植物新品种案件技术事实查明工作指引) (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines represent the first dedicated instrument governing the ascertainment of technical facts in plant variety rights litigation in China, and were promulgated pursuant to the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties, among other applicable laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations.
The Guidelines were issued against the backdrop of a marked increase in plant variety rights disputes before Chinese courts. Between 2019 and 2025, courts nationwide accepted 4,521 first-instance plant variety cases and 987 second-instance cases. The Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Tribunal alone accepted 923 such cases and concluded 725. In 2025, first-instance filings increased by 57.4% year-on-year, with filings before the Tribunal rising by 48.3%. The ascertainment of technical facts — including varietal identity, parentage relationships, and essentially derived variety relationships — has been identified as a central challenge in these proceedings, directly determining case outcomes. Prior to the Guidelines, practitioners faced inconsistent standards, insufficient procedural guidance, and a lack of instruments tailored specifically to the technical characteristics of plant variety disputes.
The Guidelines comprise 40 articles organized into eight chapters: General Provisions, Commissioned Appraisal, Expert Opinions, Expert Assistance, Technical Investigation, Expert Jurors, Technical Consultation, and Supervision and Administration. They establish a multi-pathway framework for technical fact-finding, encompassing court-commissioned appraisal, party-commissioned expert opinions, expert witnesses with specialized knowledge, technical investigation officers, expert lay assessors, and technical consultation panels. The Guidelines also address the selection and hierarchy of reference samples for molecular marker testing, the conditions under which extended locus testing may be conducted, evidentiary standards for appraisal opinions, and rules governing the shifting of the burden of proof based on test results. Timelines for appraisal completion are specified, with molecular marker appraisals to be completed within 30 working days, extendable to 60 working days for complex matters.
A translation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
Guidelines for the Ascertainment of Technical Facts in Cases Involving New Plant Varieties Tried by People’s Courts
To further standardize the work of people’s courts in ascertaining technical facts in civil and administrative disputes concerning plant variety rights, improve the scientific nature, accuracy, and standardization of technical fact ascertainment, and ensure fair and efficient trial of cases, this working guideline is formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties of the People’s Republic of China, and other laws, administrative regulations, and relevant judicial interpretations, combined with trial experience and actual circumstances.
I. General Provisions
1. The technical facts in plant variety cases referred to in this working guideline include the following:
(1) Identification of the identity of plant varieties, i.e., whether the characteristics and properties of the accused infringing product are the same as those of the authorized variety;
(2) Identification of the kinship of plant varieties, i.e., whether the accused infringing product was produced and propagated using the authorized variety as a parent;
(3) Identification of the derivative relationship of plant varieties, i.e., whether the accused infringing product was bred from the authorized variety, and whether other basic traits besides derivative traits are the same;
(4) Other technical facts, such as whether the differences in characteristics and properties between the accused infringing product and the authorized variety are due to non-genetic variations.
2. The ascertainment of technical facts in cases involving new plant varieties should adhere to the principles of scientific objectivity, procedural standardization, and efficiency and convenience.
3. The ascertainment of technical facts in cases involving new plant varieties can be conducted through methods such as the parties entrusting relevant professional institutions or personnel to issue expert opinions, the parties requesting a person with specialized knowledge to appear in court, the People’s Court entrusting an appraisal, the participation of technical investigators, expert jury trials, and expert consultation.
4. The People’s Court should organize the parties to cross-examine the appraisal opinions, expert opinions, and explanations made by persons with specialized knowledge in court regarding relevant technical facts, and determine their probative value based on a comprehensive review.
II. Entrusted Appraisal
5. Parties may apply to the People’s Court for appraisal on specialized technical facts such as the identity, kinship, and derivative relationships between plant varieties. Parties should submit their appraisal applications before the expiration of the evidentiary period, except for applications submitted after the deadline due to force majeure or other legitimate reasons.
If the People’s Court deems it necessary to entrust an appraisal of the technical facts involved in the case, it may explain this to the parties. The party not bearing the burden of proof for the technical fact disagreeing with the appraisal will not affect the People’s Court’s entrustment of the appraisal.
6. The People’s Court shall review the parties’ applications for expert evaluation to determine the necessity and feasibility of commissioning the evaluation. The People’s Court shall not grant the application if the matter to be evaluated pertains to facts that can be ascertained based on logical reasoning or life experience, facts that can already be verified based on existing evidence, facts that are unrelated to the facts to be proven, or facts that are meaningless in proving the facts to be proven.
7. When applying for expert evaluation, the parties shall ensure that the source of the allegedly infringing materials, such as seeds and seedlings, is clear and authentic, and that they are related to the allegedly infringing act. They shall also properly preserve and cultivate the materials to ensure that they meet the requirements for expert evaluation.
The parties shall provide evidence to prove or fully explain the authenticity and integrity of the source, fixation, and preservation process of the allegedly infringing materials. When necessary, the state of the samples may be fixed through methods such as field sampling video recording and pre-stored genetic fingerprints. Notarization of the fixation of the allegedly infringing materials is encouraged but not required.
8. When the People’s Court decides to commission an expert evaluation, it shall strictly review the evaluation materials and organize the parties to cross-examine the materials. Materials that have not been cross-examined shall not be used as the basis for the evaluation.
9. If the People’s Court grants an application for identification, both parties may negotiate and determine the identification institution and expert from the relevant field’s identification institutions and expert lists, or from the identification institutions and experts recommended to the People’s Court by the State Council’s agricultural and forestry authorities, or from professional institutions and professionals with corresponding crop testing capabilities; if no agreement is reached within a reasonable period, the People’s Court shall designate one from among them.
10. Identification may employ field observation and testing, molecular marker detection, and other identification methods with national or industry standards.
The selection of molecular marker detection methods should conform to the basic principles of molecular marker methods for plant variety identification. Molecular marker detection methods include simple repeat sequence (SSR), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), and multiple nucleotide polymorphism (MNP) methods.
For plant varieties for which there are no directly applicable national or industry standards for molecular marker detection, the People’s Court shall review the scientific validity and reliability of the techniques and methods used in the identification; if a molecular marker identification method generally recognized or commonly used in the field of the plant variety is adopted, the People’s Court may approve it.
11. The control samples used in the identification (i.e., the propagation material of the authorized variety claiming rights) should, in principle, be standard samples preserved by the variety’s administrative department. When standard samples have multiple official sources, those preserved by the variety rights granting authority should be given priority. When using molecular marker detection methods for identification, the genetic fingerprint of the aforementioned standard samples can also be used directly as a control.
If the aforementioned entity does not preserve standard samples, nor does it possess a genetic fingerprint of a standard sample that can be directly used for molecular marker detection, it may choose samples preserved by other official institutions that are sufficient to prove they are propagating material of the authorized variety, including samples retained by testing institutions designated by the variety rights granting authority during the variety rights granting stage.
If neither the aforementioned standard samples nor officially preserved samples are available, the rights holder may provide propagating material or a genetic fingerprint of the authorized variety as a control, and submit evidence to prove or fully explain that the provided propagating material or genetic fingerprint belongs to the authorized variety.
Regarding whether the control sample provided by the rights holder is propagating material of the authorized variety, the People’s Court shall comprehensively examine the sample source, preservation process, submission process, varietal characteristics, the rights holder’s evidence or explanation that the propagating material of the authorized variety has not undergone transplanting, crown replacement, or other changes, and the rebuttal evidence or explanation provided by the accused infringer, etc., to make a determination.
12. When reviewing expert opinions, the People’s Court shall first examine whether the opinion is signed or sealed by the expert, whether it is sealed by the expert institution, and whether it is accompanied by proof of relevant expert qualifications or capabilities.
13. For expert opinions formed through molecular marker detection, in principle, the following basic information should be provided: information on the sample to be tested (i.e., the allegedly infringing product) and its transfer and sealing status, information on the control sample, the basis for identification, the identification method, the main instruments and equipment, gene fingerprint comparison information, and the identification conclusion. For expert opinions formed through field observation and testing, the following basic information should be provided: the design of the identification experiment, phenotypic test data, and the identification conclusion.
14. For molecular marker detection expert opinions based on relevant national or industry standards for determining variety identity, the following specific information should be provided: the number of loci compared to the control sample, the number of differing loci, and the detection conclusion.
15. When using molecular marker detection methods for identification, the core loci specified in national or industry standards should be used preferentially; if the core loci cannot effectively distinguish the samples, extended loci detection may be used if necessary; if the first two types of loci still cannot effectively distinguish the samples, specific loci detection may be used.
16. If the number of inter-variety difference sites recorded in the expert opinion is zero, or the test conclusion is “extremely similar” or “identical,” the People’s Court shall determine that the accused infringing product has the same characteristics and properties as the authorized variety and is therefore identical. If the number of inter-variety difference sites recorded in the expert opinion is less than but close to the critical value, the accused infringer shall bear the burden of proof that the accused infringing product differs from the authorized variety in characteristics and properties.
17. If the difference loci recorded in the expert opinion are less than but close to the critical value, the people’s court may, upon the application of the parties, extract standard samples of the authorized variety and entrust an expert institution or expert to conduct the test, or, under specific circumstances, expand the loci for additional testing. Alternatively, it may combine breeding records and other relevant factors to make a comprehensive judgment on whether the accused infringing product and the authorized variety are identical.
18. When expanding the detection loci for additional testing, it shall be based on the premise that the difference loci between the sample to be tested and the control sample are less than but close to the critical value, and meet the following conditions:
(1) The additional testing loci have sufficient genetic polymorphism and stability;
(2) There is a strong correlation between the associated genes and phenotypes of the additional testing loci, and the reliability of this association has been fully evaluated and verified scientifically;
(3) Functional markers closely linked to traits have been developed;
(4) The loci used to select additional testing have been widely used to analyze genotypic differences between strains and varieties, and as a commonly used or recognized method in this field, they can be effectively used to detect the authenticity and purity of varieties.
19. For varieties for which national or industry standards for molecular marker detection, such as gene fingerprinting, have not yet been established, when reviewing expert opinions involving such varieties, the People’s Court shall comprehensively analyze relevant evidence, focusing on the representativeness and quantity of primers used, whether the establishment of the gene fingerprinting conforms to scientific principles, and determine whether it is sufficient to scientifically and accurately distinguish different varieties.
20. Kinship identification opinions made by qualified identification institutions and experts, referring to national or industry standards for variety identity determination, can serve as preliminary evidence for determining whether the accused infringing product was produced or bred using the authorized variety as a parent.
21. Regarding kinship identification opinions, the People’s Court shall focus on reviewing the number of loci jointly detected in the test sample and control sample, the number and proportion of marker loci in which all alleles of the control sample are not present in the test sample, whether primer determination and conclusion are provided, etc. If the kinship identification opinion concludes that there is “suspected kinship,” the People’s Court may preliminarily determine that the accused infringing product was produced or bred using the authorized variety as a parent.
If the kinship test report states that “kinship is uncertain,” the People’s Court may, in conjunction with other evidence, comprehensively determine whether the accused infringing product was produced and bred using the authorized variety as a parent. If the accused infringer only claims that it did not use the authorized variety as a parent but fails to submit evidence such as breeding records or the source of breeding materials, the People’s Court may determine that the accused infringing product was produced and bred using the authorized variety as a parent. If the kinship test report states that “there is no parent-child relationship,” the People’s Court may preliminarily determine that the accused infringing product was not produced and bred using the authorized variety as a parent.
22. If the conclusions of field observation and testing differ from those of molecular marker testing such as gene fingerprinting, the People’s Court shall take the conclusions of field observation and testing as the standard.
23. If a party objects to an expert opinion, and the People’s Court deems it necessary for the expert institution or expert to provide further explanation or supplementary information, the expert institution or expert shall provide such explanation or supplementary information; if the People’s Court deems it necessary for the expert institution or expert to appear in court, the expert institution or expert shall appear in court to testify and answer questions from the court and the parties regarding the relevant issues of the expert opinion. If an appraisal institution or appraiser refuses to appear in court to testify without a justifiable reason, the relevant appraisal opinion shall not be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case, and the party who paid the appraisal fee may request a refund of the relevant fee.
The party who objects to the appraisal opinion may apply to the People’s Court for a re-examination, supplementary appraisal, or re-appraisal, but must provide evidence and explain the reasons.
III. Expert Opinions
24. For expert opinions issued by relevant professional institutions or personnel commissioned by the parties themselves on technical factual issues involved in the case, the People’s Court may refer to the aforementioned review rules for relevant expert opinions and focus on reviewing the following:
(1) Whether the sample to be tested is related to the alleged infringement;
(2) Whether the source of the control sample is clear and authentic;
(3) Whether the relevant testing institutions and personnel have the corresponding qualifications, and whether the testing personnel have the professional knowledge, work experience and skills required to solve relevant specialized problems;
(4) Whether the testing methods and basis belong to the conventional methods or industry practices in the field of this plant variety;
(5) Whether the testing procedures are scientific and standardized;
(6) Whether the basic content of the test report is complete and whether there are any contradictions;
(7) Whether the relevant institutions and personnel have any interest in the case or the parties, whether they have engaged in favoritism or malpractice, whether they have been subject to relevant criminal or administrative penalties or industry self-regulatory organization sanctions, and other circumstances that may affect objectivity and neutrality.
25. For expert opinions issued by relevant professional institutions or personnel commissioned by the parties themselves, the People’s Court shall conduct a comprehensive and substantive review, without requiring the opposing party to raise objections to the opinion.
Where the source of the control sample is unknown, the People’s Court shall explain this to the parties. If, after explanation, a party applies for a commissioned expert evaluation and the conditions for evaluation are met, the People’s Court shall grant the application. If the opposing party has sufficient evidence or reason to refute the opinion and applies for a commissioned expert evaluation, and the conditions for evaluation are met, the People’s Court shall grant the application.
26. If the court of first instance did not accept the expert opinion issued by an institution or person commissioned by the rights holder due to the unknown source of the control sample, and the rights holder applies to the court of second instance for a commissioned expert evaluation during the second instance proceedings, and the conditions for evaluation are met, the court of second instance shall grant the application.
27. If a party submits an expert opinion issued by a professional institution or person commissioned by the party during the second instance proceedings, the People’s Court shall review it.
28. Upon notification by the People’s Court, the institution or person commissioned by the party to issue the expert opinion shall appear in court to answer questions from the court and the parties regarding technical facts and to answer questions related to the expert opinion; if necessary, the People’s Court may attach a question outline and a list of required materials to the notice of appearance.
If an institution or individual issuing an expert opinion refuses to appear in court to answer questions without a justifiable reason, the expert opinion shall not be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case, and the expenses paid by the parties for this purpose shall not be included in the scope of compensation for the case as reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights.
IV. Expert Assistance
29. Parties may apply to the People’s Court for a person with specialized knowledge to appear in court and offer opinions on professional and technical issues related to the case, including providing popular explanations or raising questions about technical terms and testing data in expert opinions and appraisal opinions, and stating opinions on the scientific nature of the methods, the authenticity of the data, and the relevance of the conclusions. They may also confront a person with specialized knowledge applied for by the opposing party on relevant professional and technical issues. Opinions expressed by a person with specialized knowledge on relevant professional and technical issues shall be deemed as statements by the applying party.
30. When a person with specialized knowledge appears in court, the People’s Court shall explain to them the legal responsibility for making false statements. The person with specialized knowledge shall truthfully state their professional background, provide identity information and professional qualification certificates, and answer questions from the court and the parties on professional and technical issues related to the case.
V. Technical Investigation
31. When participating in the ascertainment of technical facts, the technical investigator shall provide technical investigation opinions on the technical facts determined by the collegial panel, including but not limited to the scientific validity of the identification methods, the standardization of sample collection, and the reliability of the identification conclusions. The technical investigation opinions shall only serve as a reference for the collegial panel in its determination of technical facts, and the collegial panel shall bear legal responsibility for its determination of technical facts.
32. If the opinions expressed by the technical investigator on issues concerning the ascertainment of technical facts differ from those of the collegial panel, the panel may resolve the issue through further technical consultation, convening an expert consultation meeting, or submitting the case to a professional judges’ meeting for discussion.
VI. Expert Jury
33. In first-instance cases concerning new plant varieties involving complex issues of technical fact-finding, if the case meets the requirements of Article 15 or Article 16 of the “People’s Assessors Law of the People’s Republic of China,” people’s assessors with relevant professional knowledge in breeding, crop testing, etc., may participate in the collegial panel hearing.
Where the participation of people’s assessors with relevant professional knowledge in the hearing of new plant variety cases is required, the people’s court may randomly select assessors from a list of people’s assessors who meet the professional requirements.
34. People’s courts with jurisdiction over first-instance cases concerning new plant varieties may, based on the needs of judicial activities and considering the characteristics of the case type and number, actively consult with the grassroots people’s courts and judicial administrative organs responsible for the selection of people’s assessors to select a certain number of people’s assessors with relevant professional knowledge.
35. When participating in the deliberation of cases involving new plant varieties, people’s assessors with relevant professional knowledge shall independently express clear opinions on the technical facts involved in the case and exercise their voting rights in accordance with the law.
If the opinions expressed by people’s assessors with relevant professional knowledge on the technical facts are inconsistent with those of other members of the collegial panel, the collegial panel may resolve the issue through further technical consultation, convening an expert consultation meeting, or submitting the case to a professional judges’ meeting for discussion.
VII. Technical Consultation
36. When necessary, the collegial panel may consult with judicial technical personnel of the people’s court or external professional institutions and technical experts who have no stake in the case on the technical facts involved in the case. The technical consultation opinions provided shall only serve as a reference for the collegial panel in determining the technical facts, and the collegial panel shall bear the responsibility for its own determination of the technical facts.
37. If the technical facts involved in the case are relatively difficult and complex, the people’s court may, as needed, organize multiple technical experts in the relevant technical field to hold an expert consultation meeting and listen to their opinions.
VIII. Supervision and Management
38. When a people’s court entrusts an appraisal of the technical facts in a case concerning a new plant variety, the appraisal institution or appraiser accepting the entrustment shall properly keep and preserve the relevant appraisal materials and submit an appraisal plan, information on the appraiser, and a letter of commitment from the appraiser within 5 working days of accepting the entrustment.
If molecular marker detection methods are used for appraisal, an appraisal opinion shall be issued within 30 working days; for cases involving difficult or complex technical issues, the time limit shall not exceed 60 working days.
If there are special circumstances preventing the issuance of an appraisal opinion on time, the appraisal institution or appraiser shall promptly inform the people’s court and specify a reasonable time limit for issuing the appraisal opinion. The people’s court may decide whether to extend the time limit based on the circumstances of the case, but the extension period shall generally not exceed 30 working days.
39. If an appraisal institution or appraiser engages in illegal or irregular activities such as appraisal beyond their scope of practice, false appraisal, or delaying appraisal without justifiable reason, the people’s court may, depending on the circumstances, take measures such as terminating the entrustment, ordering the refund of appraisal fees, and may issue judicial recommendations to the relevant administrative departments or industry associations.
If an appraisal institution or appraiser intentionally makes a false appraisal, the People’s Court, in addition to taking the aforementioned measures, may also impose penalties in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China regarding coercive measures for obstructing civil proceedings; if suspected illegal or criminal activity is discovered, the clues shall be transferred to the relevant authorities for handling.
40. If a professional institution or person commissioned by a party intentionally issues a false expert opinion, or if a person with specialized knowledge applied for by a party intentionally makes a false statement when appearing in court, the People’s Court may impose penalties in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China regarding coercive measures for obstructing civil proceedings; if suspected illegal or criminal activity is discovered, the clues shall be transferred to the relevant authorities for handling.
