[Basic Facts of the Case]

Gan XX Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new rice plant variety “Gangyou 188”. It filed an infringement lawsuit, claiming that the “Gangyou 88” seeds produced and sold by Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and sold by Lei XX infringed its variety rights, and requested that the two companies be ordered to stop the infringement, Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than 15.14 million RMB, and Lei XX bear joint and several liability for reasonable expenses. Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company argued that it had obtained the production and operation rights of the approved variety “Gangyou 88” through legal transfer, and at the time of transfer, it had conducted authenticity appraisal of the “Gangyou 88” it used and had fulfilled its reasonable review obligations, so it should not bear compensation liability. After the administrative agency and the first instance court commissioned appraisals respectively, the alleged infringing seeds “Gangyou 88” produced and sold by Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and sold by Lei XX were identical to the standard sample of the approved variety, and were similar to the authorized variety “Gangyou 188”. The court of first instance determined that Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and Lei XX did not infringe the law based on the fact that the alleged infringing seed “Gangyou 88” was identical to its approved standard sample. Gan XX Industrial Company filed an appeal.

[Judgment Result]

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that there are differences between variety approval and variety authorization in terms of application procedures and system purposes. Whether the alleged infringing seeds are identical to the standard samples of the approved varieties has no relevance to whether they are identical to the characteristics and properties of the authorized varieties for protection. Unless otherwise provided by laws and administrative regulations, the production, reproduction, and sale of authorized variety propagation materials without the permission of the variety right holder constitutes infringement of variety rights. If the alleged infringing seeds belong to the approved varieties, he can claim the corresponding contractual liability from the transferor based on the contractual relationship, but cannot use this to counter the infringement claim of the variety right holder. If there are multiple license transfers of the infringing approved varieties, unless there is evidence that the alleged infringer has not used the seeds, the infringement time can be calculated from the date on which he acquired the variety in principle. Based on this, the second instance changed the judgment ordering Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and Lei XX to stop the infringement, Chongqing Non XX. Industrial Company must compensate for losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling more than 5.96 million RMB, and Lei XX was responsible for reasonable expenses for rights protection of 6,288 RMB.

【Typical significance】

This case clearly stipulates that the transferee of the approved variety shall bear legal responsibility for any act that constitutes infringement of the variety rights in the production and operation of the approved variety, which not only provides strong protection for the variety rights holder, but also effectively regulates the seed industry market. This case serves as a warning to seed operators to standardize their operations throughout the entire process of variety authorization, variety approval, and variety production promotion, in order to promote awareness of variety rights protection. The second instance judgment has reference significance in clarifying the legal nature of the approved variety, clarifying the method of infringement judgment, and reasonably determining compensation.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

The “Sailete” apple variety was selected and bred by a research institute company in New Zealand and obtained the plant variety rights in China. Ying XX International Company is an interested party in the variety rights of “Sailete”. They have filed a lawsuit claiming that You XX Agricultural Company has been producing, breeding, and selling “Sailete” breeding materials without permission since 2018, and has sold a large amount of apple fruits harvested from them, which constitutes infringement. They request an order to stop the infringement, to inactivate the infringing materials, and to apply punitive damages of 5 million RMB. The You XX Agricultural Company believes that its planting of fruit trees does not constitute production or reproduction, and that planting fruit trees only for the purpose of obtaining apple fruits rather than specifically cultivating seedlings and does not constitute infringement. Even if it is determined to constitute infringement, it should not be ordered to inactivate the fruit trees, let alone determine the compensation amount based on the sales volume of apple fruits. After appraisal, it was found that the branches of the “Aifei” fruit tree purchased by Yin XX company from You XX agricultural company through notarization are identical to the “Sailete” variety. You XX agricultural company did not provide evidence that its fruit trees have a legal source.

[Judgment Result]

The Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province ruled at first instance that You XX Agricultural Company should inactivate all infringing propagation materials (plants, branches, etc.), and at the same time applied double punitive damages, and ordered You XX Agricultural Company to compensate for losses, temporary protection period usage fees and reasonable expenses totaling 3.3 million RMB. You XX Agricultural Company appealed.

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that in the process of planting and obtaining “Sailete” apples by You XX Agricultural Company, a large number of saplings and branches must have been propagated. Based on the evidence in this case, it can be reasonably inferred that it has been engaged in the continuous production and propagation of authorized variety propagation materials. You XX agricultural company plants saplings of the “Sailete” variety for profit, sells a large number of apple fruits, and engages in propagation behavior. Its planting behavior should be recognized as production and reproduction behavior. It not only produces and reproduces apple seedlings, but also sells apple fruits. The act of selling harvested materials is a natural extension of the production and propagation of authorized varieties of breeding materials in the chain of time and obtaining illegal benefits, and should be considered as a whole. When determining the amount of compensation, the principle of comprehensive compensation should be followed, and the profits obtained from selling harvested materials should be used as a reference for infringement profits. Inactivating the breeding materials of infringing varieties is an effective measure and a natural means to stop infringement. When determining the specific responsibility for ceasing infringement, based on the characteristics of the accused infringing variety’s long-term growth and asexual reproduction, if the infringing propagation materials are not inactivated, the infringing plants may survive for a long time and have the risk of spreading. Compared to the method of removing seedlings and replanting them, the right holder’s claim to stop infringement by inactivating the scion and grafting non infringing varieties of scions can better balance the interests of all parties and should be supported. The appeal was dismissed and the original verdict was upheld.

【Typical significance】

The holder of the variety right in this case is a New Zealand company, and the judgment shows that the People’s Court insists on equal protection in accordance with the law. This case regards the act of selling harvested materials as a natural extension of the production and reproduction of propagation materials, and when the infringer mainly obtains illegal profits by selling harvested materials, the sales profit of the harvested materials is used as the basis for determining the amount of compensation, which provides an important reference for the calculation of compensation in subsequent similar cases and further strengthens the comprehensive protection of variety right holders. The method of stopping infringement supported by this case, which is to cut off the scion of infringing propagation material and graft other non-infringing variety scions, fully considers the characteristics of perennial asexually propagated crops, fully protects the interests of variety right holders, and reasonably takes into account the recovery of agricultural production and avoidance of resource waste, and makes useful explorations for refining the forms of stopping infringement of variety rights.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. is the owner of the variety right of the new variety of Rosaceae, “Tianshan Xiangyun”. In 2022, Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. notarized the purchase of seedlings that infringed the variety right of “Tianshan Xiangyun” from a certain seedling farm in Xinjiang. On May 28, 2023, a certain seedling farm in Xinjiang signed a “Seedling Ordering Agreement” with a certain cultivation base in Changji, agreeing to sell 8,000 “Tianshan Xiangyun Seedlings.” Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. filed an infringement lawsuit, claiming that the Xinjiang seedling farm had continued to infringe from 2014 to 2023, and requested that Xinjiang farm to stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling 5 million RMB. Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. sells “Tianshan Xiangyun” at a price of 320-360 RMB per plant, while the Xinjiang seedling farm sells it at a price of 120-160 RMB per plant. Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. claims that the average of the difference between its sales price of “Tianshan Xiangyun” and the sales price of the Xinjiang seedling farm in is its sales profit. The Xinjiang seedling farm argued that it was a public welfare institution. Since 2014, it has been cutting branches of rose varieties such as “Tianshan Xiangyun” from municipal parks for breeding. In 2021, the 36 rose varieties cultivated will be uniformly named “Tianshan Rose.” “Tianshan Xiangyun” is only one of them. Its behavior is scientific research and development, and the seedlings it obtained were cut from municipal parks or introduced from other places. According to the principle of exhaustion of rights, it does not constitute infringement. The 2021 work summary submitted by it shows that 10,500 “Tianshan Xiangyun” cuttings were taken in 2021, and 4,000 survived. The “Origin Quarantine Certificate” of the Xinjiang seedling farm in 2022 and 2023 recorded that the number of “Tianshan Rose” including “Tianshan Xiangyun” was 20,000 and 50,000 respectively. The first instance court determined that the production, breeding and sales behavior of the Xinjiang seedling farm exceeded the scope of scientific research and had a profit-making purpose. The infringement was established and ordered it to stop the infringement and pay 200,000 RMB in compensation. Xinjiang Hua Technology Company appealed.

[Judgment Result]

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the application of the principle of exhaustion of variety rights is based on the premise that the authorized variety propagation materials are sold by the variety right holder or the entity or individual authorized by the variety right holder, and only applies to the subsequent production, propagation, and sales of the legally sold authorized variety propagation materials themselves, and does not apply to the re-propagation and sale of the sold propagation materials. The Xinjiang seedling farm failed to prove that its propagation behavior was to use the authorized variety to cultivate new varieties, and its large-scale propagation was inconsistent with the scale required for scientific research. At the same time, it engaged in sales for profit, which constituted infringement. The Xinjiang seedling farm admitted that it had cut and propagated “Tianshan Xiangyun” seedlings at the end of 2014 and is still producing and propagating it. Combined with the notarial certificates involved in the case, relevant agreements, work summaries and other evidence, it can be determined that it has continued to infringe since at least 2014 to 2023. Considering that the price of goods sold to the outside world is bound to be higher than the production cost and the Xinjiang seedling farm refused to provide relevant account books and other information, the average value of the difference between the price of “Tianshan Xiangyun” sold by Xinjiang Hua Technology Company and the sales price of Xinjiang seedling farm, that is, 200 RMB/plant, was used as the basis for determining the losses suffered by the right holder due to infringement. Based on the evidence in the case, the number of alleged infringing seedlings produced and bred by the Xinjiang seedling farm in 2021 was not less than 4,000, and in 2023 it was not less than 8,000. Based on this, selecting the average number of these two years, it can be determined that the number of alleged infringing seedlings produced and bred by the Xinjiang seedling farm from 2021 to 2023 was 6,000 plants/year. The amount of damages calculated based on these three years alone has exceeded the 3 million RMB requested by Xinjiang Hua Technology Company in appeal. Therefore, the second instance changed the judgment to fully support the amount of compensation requested by Xinjiang Hua Technology Company on appeal.

【Typical significance】

This case clearly states that the principle of exhaustion of rights does not apply to the act of re-breeding and selling the propagation materials that have been sold. The second-instance judgment supported the relevant claims of the variety right holder when the infringer refused to submit financial books and other evidence, calculated the infringement damages based on the difference between the variety right holder’s selling price and the infringer’s selling price, and significantly increased the amount of compensation, effectively protecting the rights and interests of breeding innovation entities, and has precedential significance for breaking through the difficulties of evidence and accurately determining the amount of compensation in similar infringement cases.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company is the licensee of the exclusive implementation license for the new rice plant variety “Jinjing 818”. In May 2020, a certain agricultural material company in Xuzhou was ordered to stop infringement and bear punitive compensation liability for using white bags and irregular packaging to sell infringing seeds without the permission of the “Jinjing 818” variety right holder. The company failed to comply with the above judgment, and Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company applied for compulsory execution. During the execution process, the court added Zhao XX, the sole shareholder and legal representative of a certain agricultural material company in Xuzhou, as the liable person. Since January 2021, Zhao XX has successively released seed supply information, contact numbers of the heads of various sales areas of a certain agricultural material company in Xuzhou, and accountant Zhao YY in WeChat group chats, and organized offline ordering activities. Starting from November 29, 2021, a farmer communicated with the sales staff of the agricultural material company in Xuzhou about the purchase of the alleged infringing seeds, and paid the deposit and the remaining amount to Zhao YY’s account. Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Xuzhou XX Agricultural Materials Company, Zhao XX, and Zhao YY stop infringing and jointly compensate for losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 3 million RMB. During the first instance trial, it was determined that the alleged infringing seeds were very similar or identical to “Jinjing 818”.

[Judgment Result]

The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held at first instance that after being ordered to stop infringement in the previous case, the Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company once again organized seed transactions through WeChat groups and committed infringement. Zhao XX, the legal representative and sole shareholder of Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company, used WeChat groups to publish seed supply information and organized offline ordering activities, playing a key and core organizational role in seed transactions, and jointly infringed with Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company. Zhao YY, who participated in seed sampling, collected transaction funds with his personal account after Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company was found liable, and he, Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company, and Zhao XX  jointly infringed. The three defendants were ordered to stop the infringement, and Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company and Zhao XX jointly compensated Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.8 million RMB, and Zhao YY was jointly liable for 350,000 RMB of it. The three defendants  appealed. The Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment.

【Typical significance】

This case is a typical example of severely cracking down on hidden infringements and the persons directly responsible. In response to hidden infringements such as organizing seed transactions on online platforms, the actual controller of the company who played an organizing and decision-making role in the occurrence of the infringement and other persons who received the company’s infringement proceeds with their personal accounts and directly participated in the infringement were found to have committed joint infringements with the company, and were ordered to bear joint and several liability based on the circumstances of their infringement and the extent of their role, effectively raising the cost of infringement.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

A plant company in Shanghai and a non-party company in Shanghai are the variety rights holders of the new fruit vine variety “Hongyunlai.” In January 2020, the plant company in Shanghai obtained “Xinhongxing” seedlings sold by the Guangzhou agricultural science company and has them notarized and stored at the Plant New Variety Testing (Shanghai) Branch Center, and sent the above two samples to a technology company in Ningbo for testing. On April 13, 2020, the technology company in Ningbo issued a “Technical Appraisal Opinion”, and the appraisal result was that the AFLP fingerprints of the two varieties were 95.08% similar, and the two varieties were highly similar. The plant company in Shanghai filed a lawsuit, requesting that the Guangzhou agricultural science company be ordered to stop infringement and compensate for losses. The first-instance judgment did not adopt the technical appraisal opinion on the grounds that the varieties involved had no national standards or industry standards for molecular marker detection, and rejected all the claims of the plant company in Shanghai. The plant company in Shanghai appealed. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court approved the appraisal application of the plant company in Shanghai, and with the consent of both parties, designated a testing agency to conduct the appraisal. The testing agency used the MNP labeling method to conduct testing and issued a test report stating that the genetic similarity between the tested sample and the control sample was 99.91%, and the identification results were extremely similar or the same variety.

[Judgment Result]

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the people’s courts should review whether the molecular marker detection method for plant variety identity identification is scientific and reliable. If the molecular marker detection method for a specific plant variety has not yet established a national standard or industry standard, the identification results made by qualified identification institutions and appraisers with reference to other relevant standards, if the identification method can scientifically and accurately distinguish different varieties and has sufficient scientific basis and repeatability, can be used as evidence to determine whether the alleged infringing object is identical to the authorized variety. The “MNP Marking Method for Plant Variety Identification” has been established as a national standard and can be applied to the identification of original varieties, substantially derived varieties and variety authenticity identification of rice, corn, soybeans, etc. The identity identification of pineapple varieties of the genus Pyrifera can be carried out in accordance with the “MNP Marking Method for Plant Variety Identification.” After identification, the alleged infringing seedlings “Xinhongxing” and the authorized variety “Hongyunlai” are very similar or identical varieties. The Guangzhou agricultural science company did not submit rebuttal evidence, so it can be determined that the alleged infringing seedlings are identical to the authorized variety “Hongyunlai”. The court then changed the judgment to require the Guangzhou agricultural science company to stop infringing  and compensate for the losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.075 million RMB.

【Typical significance】

This case is a typical case of exploring the use of MNP labeling for identification of specific crops for which national or industry standards for molecular marker detection have not yet been established. The second-instance judgment conducted a strict review of the identification methods and institutions of specific crops, and based on the scientific nature and repeatability of the identification methods, determined that the identification opinions can be used as evidence to determine that the alleged infringing seedlings are identical to the authorized varieties, avoiding the lack of identification standards for specific crop variety rights affecting judicial protection and relief. This case provides a precedential example for the use and judicial review of the MNP labeling method in the identification of the identity of new plant varieties.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

A certain scientific academy in Beijing is the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety “Jingnuo 6”, and a certain breeding company in Beijing is its exclusive licensee. “Jingkenuo 2000” is a hybrid corn variety produced with “Jingnuo 6” and “Bai Nuo 6” as parents. The breeding company in Beijing filed a lawsuit, requesting that a certain industrial company in Guangxi, a certain subsidiary in Shenzhen, and a certain seed store stop using “Jingnuo 6” to produce the alleged infringing seed “Shenkenuo 8” and compensate for the losses. The first instance court conducted an authenticity appraisal of the alleged infringing seeds “Shenkenuo 8” and “Jingkenuo 2000” in accordance with the law, and conducted a parent-child relationship appraisal of the alleged infringing seeds “Shenkenuo 8” and “Jingnuo 6”. The appraisal result is that the alleged infringing seeds “Shenkenuo 8” and “Jingkenuo 2000” are similar varieties, and are suspected to have a parent-child relationship with “Jingnuo 6”.

[Judgment Result]

In the first instance, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province determined that the alleged infringing seed “Shenkenuo No. 8” was produced by reusing the authorized variety “Jingnuo 6” as the parent, based on the results of the authenticity identification and parent-child relationship identification in the case, and ordered the industrial company in Guangxi, the subsidiary in Shenzhen, and the seed store to stop the infringement, and ordered the industrial company in Guangxi to compensate for losses of 300,000 RMB and reasonable expenses of 50,000 RMB, the subsidiary in Shenzhen to compensate for losses of 100,000 RMB , and the seed store to compensate for losses of 20,000 RMB. The industrial company in Guangxi and a subsidiary in Shenzhen appealled.

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that, when judging whether a specific hybrid is produced and propagated by repeatedly using the authorized variety as a parent, given that there is currently a lack of national standards or industry standards for the identification of the parent-offspring relationship of plant varieties, the parent-offspring relationship identification opinion made by the identification agency in reference to the variety authenticity identification standard can be used as the basis for determining the facts. The identification report in this case can serve as preliminary evidence to determine that the alleged infringing seed “Shenkenuo No. 8” repeatedly used the authorized variety “Jingnuo 6” breeding materials in the production process. At the same time, combined with the identification opinion that the hybrid “Jingkenuo 2000” produced with “Jingnuo 6” as the mother parent and the alleged infringing hybrid “Shenkenuo No. 8” are similar varieties, it can be determined that the fact that “Shenkenuo No. 8” was produced using the “Jingnuo 6” breeding materials as the parent is highly likely. The Guangxi industrial company and a subsidiary in Shenzhen failed to provide evidence to prove that the alleged infringing seeds have a legitimate parental source, so their claim of non-infringement is not supported. The court therefore ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

【Typical significance】

With the deepening of intellectual property protection in the seed industry, the protection of crop parents has become one of the key concerns of variety right holders. At present, there is no universal standard for the identification of the parent-offspring relationship of plant varieties. How to prove that the hybrid variety in question is produced using the authorized variety is a difficult problem in judicial practice. This case reasonably considers the laws of crop breeding, comprehensively analyzes the results of the parent-offspring relationship identification between the parent variety and the hybrid variety, and the authenticity identification results of the hybrid variety, and reasonably allocates the burden of proof, thereby achieving effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parent variety right holders, and providing a reference for handling similar cases in judicial practice.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

A certain industrial company in Shandong, authorized by the variety right holder, has the right to file a civil lawsuit in its own name for infringement of the variety right of “Xianyu 508”. After testing, the allegedly infringing seeds “Chenqiang 808”, “Jinongyu 885” and “Jinke 757” are very similar or identical to the authorized variety of “Xianyu 508”. The Shandong industrial company  filed an infringement lawsuit, requesting that a certain agricultural company in Shanxi and a certain distribution department in Qi County stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling 550,000 RMB. The Shandong industrial company requested to determine the amount of compensation based on the profit of the infringement of the Shanxi company, and submitted the sales data of corn seeds of “Chenqiang 808”, “Jinongyu 885” and “Jinke 757” filed on the seed industry big data platform from 2018 to 2021; and claimed to determine the production and sales quantity of infringing seeds based on the production numbers of the Shanxi company in the above-mentioned filing data. The court of first instance ordered the Shanxi agricultural company and the Qi county distribution department to stop the infringement, and ordered the Shanxi agricultural company to compensate for losses of 30,000 RMB and reasonable expenses of 16,000 RMB, and the Qi county distribution department to pay reasonable expenses of 4,000 RMB. Both the Shandong agricultural company and the Shanxi agricultural company appealed.

[Judgment Result]

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the alleged infringer registered production and operation on the seed industry big data platform as a producer, and the name of the alleged infringing seed was the same as the name of the registered variety, and the production time of the alleged infringing seed was close to the registration time of the seed industry big data platform. In principle, it can be presumed that the registered sales quantity is the production and sales quantity of the infringing seeds. Combined with the facts of this case, the names of the alleged infringing seeds “Chenqiang 808”, “Jinongyu 885” and “Jinke 757” obtained through notarization are the same as the names of the registered varieties, and the production time of the alleged infringing seeds is close to the registration time of the seed industry big data platform in 2021. It can be presumed that the seeds with the same name registered by the Shanxi agricultural company in 2021 are all “Xianyu 508” corn seeds, and the registered sales quantity can be determined as the production and sales quantity of the alleged infringing seeds, and the infringement damages can be calculated accordingly. Therefore, the Shanxi agricultural company was sentenced to compensate for losses of 370,000 RMB and reasonable expenses of 30,000 RMB.

【Typical significance】

The information system of the seed administration department stores data and information related to seed production, sales and other links. Through the reasonable use of relevant data and information, effective tracking of the infringing subject and the scale of infringement can be formed. This case clarifies the use of the registered data of the seed industry big data platform in the calculation of damages for variety rights infringement. Through comprehensive consideration of the registered data of the seed industry big data platform and the infringement involved in the case, the sales volume of infringing seeds is reasonably estimated, and the amount of infringement compensation is calculated accordingly, which effectively solves the problem of difficulty in providing evidence for variety rights holders and effectively increases the intensity of infringement compensation.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Hua XX Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new plant variety “Bainong 207”. The alleged infringing seeds were purchased from Tang’s store. The packaging bag and the QR code scan screenshot show that the variety name is “Sunshine 818”, and the producer is “Feng XX Industrial Company”. The query of the QR code traceability website shows that the queried product is genuine, and the production unit also points to Feng  Industrial Company. Hua Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Feng Industrial Company and Tang’s store stop infringing and compensate for losses of 300,000 RMB. In the first instance, Hua Industrial Company submitted a “Test Report” made by a unilateral commission, intending to prove that the alleged infringing seeds are the same variety as the authorized variety “Bainong 207”. The first instance court determined that the control sample “Bainong 207” had no sample number, the source was questionable, and the test conclusion was insufficient. The production date and test date shown on the scanned QR code of the packaging bag were two years earlier than the sales date, which was inconsistent with common sense and could not prove that the alleged infringing seeds were produced by Feng Industrial Company. Therefore, the first instance judgment dismissed all the claims of Hua Industrial Company. Hua Industrial Company appealed. In the second instance, the court initiated the appraisal according to law, as the alleged infringing seeds were sealed in good condition and met the conditions for appraisal. The appraisal agency conducted an identity test on the alleged infringing seeds and the “Bainong 207” standard sample in the national standard sample library, and the test results showed that the two were the same variety.

[Judgment Result]

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the information marked on the seed packaging and label, the license or the information pointed to by the number of the “Origin Quarantine Certificate” is an important basis for identifying the production and sales entity of the alleged infringing seeds. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the seed producer and operator information clearly marked on the packaging bag can be used to determine the identity of the production and sales entity. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Feng Industrial Company can be identified as the producer and seller of the alleged infringing seeds. The probative force of the inspection report issued by the appraisal agency should be reviewed from the aspects of the source of the sample, the identification method, the identification procedure and the identification qualification. The appraisal agency entrusted by the court conducted a germination test on the sample to be tested. After the successful germination determined that the seed vitality was normal, it used the molecular marker identification method for detection and issued an inspection report in accordance with the national standard, which can prove that the alleged infringing seeds are identical to the “Bai Nong 207” wheat variety. Tang’s sales department knew that it was infringing seeds but still sold them, and should bear joint and several liability. Based on this, the second instance court changed the judgment to require Feng Industrial Company and Tang Store to stop the infringement, and Feng Industrial Company to compensate for the losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 300,000 RMB, and Tang Store to bear joint and several liability within 50,000 RMB of this amount.

【Typical significance】

Accurately identifying the infringing subject is a key link in maintaining the order of the seed market and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the variety rights holders. This case clarified the basis for identifying the producers and sellers in the variety rights infringement disputes, and highlighted the importance of making good use of the management information involved in seed supervision to achieve coordinated protection. At the same time, the second-instance judgment provided guidance on the evidence and duty of care of the appraisal applicant. According to the second-instance appraisal opinion, the infringement facts were confirmed, and the legitimate rights and interests of the variety rights holders were fully protected.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new soybean plant variety “Qihuang 34”. Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and its operator Geng promised to sell  “Qihuang 34” soybean seeds through Douyin [TikTok] video accounts and WeChat video accounts. According to statistics, the videos released on different dates advertised that the amount of seeds produced and sold by them reached 310 tons. Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng stop the infringement and jointly compensate for the loss of 300,000 RMBand reasonable expenses of 12,596 RMB.

[Judgment Result]

The Intermediate People’s Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province held at first instance that the Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng XX produced and sold seeds that infringed the “Qihuang 34” soybean plant new variety rights without permission, which constituted infringement and they should bear civil liabilities such as stopping the infringement and compensating for losses. The Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng sold 310 tons of infringing soybean seeds through the Internet. According to the notarized purchase price of 3.5 RMB per catty by Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company, the infringing sales amounted to 2.17 million RMB. Based on this, the first instance judgment fully supported the economic losses of 300,000 RMB claimed by Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company, and supported the reasonable expenses of 10,000 RMB for rights protection. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.

【Typical significance】

This case embodies the effective use of online evidence in seed industry infringement cases. At the same time, it fully supports the rights holder’s claim for compensation based on the evidence in the case, reflecting the judicial orientation of the People’s Court to effectively strengthen the protection of seed industry intellectual property rights and increase the intensity of compensation for damages.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Henan Xu Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new soybean plant variety “You 6019”. This variety passed the national variety approval in 2018 and is suitable for summer planting in Hubei, Chongqing, southern Anhui, northern Jiangxi, and southern Shaanxi. The “Zhongdou 40” soybean seeds produced by Henan Hua Industrial Company were commissioned by Xin Agricultural Materials Business Department and sold by Ming Agricultural Materials Business Department in Anxiang County, Changde City, Hunan Province, and were seized by local agricultural law enforcement departments. After testing, “Zhongdou 40” and “You 6019” are suspected to be the same variety. Henan Xu Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Henan Hua Industrial Company, Xin Agricultural Materials Business Department, and Ming Agricultural Materials Business Department stop infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses of 300,000 RMB. Henan Hua Industrial Company, Xin Agricultural Materials Business Department, and Ming Agricultural Materials Business Department argued that their sales activities occurred outside the suitable planting area for the “You 6019” variety, and Henan Xu Industrial Company had no right to claim rights and should not receive economic compensation.

[Judgment Result]

The Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province ruled at first instance that Henan Hua XX Industrial Company, Xin XX Agricultural Materials Business Department, and Ming XX Agricultural Materials Business Department should stop infringing the law and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 150,000, RMB 10,000, and RMB 5,000 respectively. Henan Hua XX Industrial Company appealed.

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that if the variety right is legal and within the effective protection period, it should be protected by law. The scope of the prohibition power of the variety right is not limited by the authorized variety suitable planting area or the approved area, and the establishment of the variety right infringement is not conditional on whether the alleged infringement is carried out in the authorized variety suitable planting area or the approved area. The production and sale of authorized variety propagation materials in non-approved areas without the permission of the variety right holder still constitutes infringement according to law. At the same time, damages, as a basic legal remedy for the right holder, should not be adversely affected by the infringement occurring in non-approved areas. On the contrary, infringement in non-approved areas not only damages the rights and interests of the variety right holder, but also may damage the interests of growers, which can be used as a factor to aggravate the infringement. Hua XX Industrial Company produced and sold the alleged infringing seeds in non-approved suitable planting areas, which constituted infringement and should bear compensation liability. At the same time, based on the same authorized variety, the same infringement and the infringing subject, the reasonable expenses incurred by the variety right holder in the administrative law enforcement procedure to maintain its variety rights can be determined as reasonable expenses in the case of infringement of new plant variety rights disputes, and they shall be supported when determining compensation liability. The court then ruled to dismiss the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

【Typical significance】

This case clarified the nature of the infringement of the production and sale of authorized varieties in non-approved areas, emphasized that the protection of variety rights is not limited by the planting area, and that the infringement may also affect the legitimate rights and interests of growers, which can be used as a factor in the aggravation of the infringement. At the same time, this case also clarified that the reasonable expenses spent by the variety right holder in the administrative law enforcement procedure to maintain its variety rights under certain circumstances can be supported as reasonable expenses in the case of infringement of new plant variety rights. The judgment in this case further strengthened the comprehensive protection of the legitimate rights and interests of variety right holders.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

A Dutch group company is the owner of the variety rights of three new rose plant varieties, including “LEXTEEWS”. Ai Agricultural Company is an affiliated company of a Dutch group company, authorized to produce, promote and sell a series of rose varieties including “LEXTEEWS” in China, and has the right to sue for related infringements. An agricultural company in Lanzhou bred, promised to sell and sold “LEXTEEWS” and other rose varieties on a large scale in the flower industry base. The Dutch group company and Ai Agricultural Company filed three infringement lawsuits, requesting that the agricultural company in Lanzhou stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than 10 million RMB.

[Judgment Result]

After the first instance of the case was filed at the Intermediate People’s Court of Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, Ai Agricultural Company immediately applied for property preservation of more than 8 million RMB in the account funds of the Lanzhou Agricultural Company. Rose planting by the Lanzhou Agricultural Company has reached a certain scale. The first instance court organized mediation between the two parties many times, promoting win-win cooperation between the two parties, and finally signed an authorization statement and cooperation framework agreement, transforming the infringement into authorized cooperation.

【Typical significance】

The People’s Court adheres to the purpose of justice for the people and the principle of equal protection, actively explores diversified dispute resolution, and ultimately mediates the case. It not only equally protects the rights of foreign variety right holders in accordance with the law, but also lays a solid foundation for future cooperation between the two parties, prompting both parties to integrate resources, give play to their respective advantages, drive industrial development, and achieve good results of win-win, multi-win and win-win results.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

On October 11, 2020, Hainan Feng Fruit Company and Ye Ding signed the “Pineapple Planting Agreement”, which stipulated that the two parties would cooperate in planting “shousi pineapples”. Ye Ding would provide pineapple seedlings and planting fertilizers for a fee, provide planting technology free of charge, and guarantee that the pineapple fruit yield would not be less than 3,000 kilograms per mu, and the cultivated pineapple seedling yield would not be less than 12,000 plants per mu; after the pineapple fruits matured, Ye Ding would repurchase all the pineapple fruits at a price not less than 3 RMB per kilogram. During the cooperation process, Hainan Feng Fruit Company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the pineapple production and sales price did not conform to the contract agreement, requesting that Ye Ding pay a penalty of 505,008 RMB, compensate for losses of 288,985 RMB, and repurchase pineapple seedlings at market prices. Ye Ding counterclaimed and requested Hainan Feng Fruit Company to pay 115,396 RMB for seedlings and compensate for losses due to overdue payments. The court of first instance ruled that Ye Ding should compensate Hainan Feng Mou Fruit Company for the losses, and Hainan Feng Fruit Company should pay the remaining amount of seedlings to Ye Ding. Hainan Feng Fruit Company appealed to the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court.

[Judgment Result]

After the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court accepted the case, it handled the case prudently and sought diversified solutions, considering that seeds and seedlings are important raw materials for agricultural production and their quality and safety are related to farmers’ income and agricultural development. Considering that the subject matter of the case, “shousi pineapple” seedlings, is a non-major crop variety with high economic value, in order to substantially resolve the disputes and contradictions between the two parties, the court communicated with the two parties many times before and after the court, and facilitated the mediation of the two parties from multiple angles of “emotion”, “reason” and “law”. The two parties signed the mediation agreement and immediately implemented the contents of the mediation agreement on the day they received it, and the case was successfully resolved.

【Typical significance】

This case is a typical example of settling disputes in the seed industry. Based on the contract agreement and legal provisions, the trial court balanced the interests of seed users and seed suppliers, advocated that the parties eliminate differences, show mutual understanding and compromise, and achieve win-win results, thus facilitating the settlement of the case and effectively implementing the concept of justice for the people in specific cases, ensuring the safety of seed use and maintaining the healthy development of the seed industry.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Before his death, Academician Yuan Longping signed the “Yuan Longping Brand Rights License Agreement” with a certain agricultural high-tech company, authorizing the company to exclusively use his name in its business activities. Wan Group Company and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company have overlapping business scopes with a certain agricultural high-tech company. They use the words “Guo Mi Wannian Gong Yuan Longping” in the outer packaging of rice and other products and in online publicity for promotion and sales. The agricultural high-tech company filed a lawsuit, requesting that the two defendants immediately stop unfair competition and compensate the agricultural high-tech company for economic losses of 1 million RMB and reasonable expenses of 100,000 RMB for rights protection.

[Judgment Result]

The Shangrao Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangxi Province ruled at first instance that Wan Group and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company should immediately stop the unfair competition of producing and selling packaging products with “Yuan Longping’s” name and signature, and immediately delete the promotional content that improperly uses “Yuan Longping’s” name and signature; Wan Group and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company should compensate for the losses and reasonable expenses of rights protection totaling 50,000 RMB. Wan Group and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company appealed.

The Jiangxi Provincial High People’s Court held in the second instance that the use of the words “Yuan Longping” in the form of inscriptions and signatures on the allegedly infringing goods was commercial use. Academician Yuan Longping’s name has a high degree of popularity and influence, and is a name with a certain influence. The agricultural high-tech company enjoys the relevant commercial use rights of the name “Yuan Longping”. Wan Group Company and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company used the name “Yuan Longping” for product promotion and sales without obtaining legal authorization, which easily misled people into believing that their products had a specific connection with Academician Yuan Longping or the agricultural high-tech company, constituting commercial confusion. This behavior violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the agricultural high-tech company, and constituted unfair competition. Based on this, the second instance court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

【Typical significance】

Academician Yuan Longping is a hybrid rice breeding expert in my country and the father of hybrid rice in the world. His name has extremely high social influence and commercial value. The judgment in this case clarifies the legal standard for the commercial use of the names of well-known breeders to constitute unfair competition, and provides guidance for adjudication of similar disputes. The judgment in this case effectively implements the principles of honesty and trustworthiness and business ethics, effectively safeguards the commercial rights and interests of the names of well-known breeders, regulates the market competition order, and helps to create a healthy and fair market environment.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

Hubei Kang XX Industrial Company is the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety “FL218”. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company filed a request for invalidation with the Plant Variety Review Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, claiming that the variety had been mass-produced and sold before the application date, and other varieties approved for breeding with it as a parent had also been mass-produced and sold, so the variety in question did not have novelty. The Plant Variety Review Committee made an invalidation review decision, believing that the evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that the variety in question lacked novelty and specificity, and maintained the validity of the variety right in question. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

[Judgment Result]

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held at first instance that “FL218” possessed novelty and specificity, and rejected the lawsuit filed by Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Co., Ltd. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Co., Ltd. appealed.

The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company only requested the declaration of invalidity of the variety right on the grounds that “FL218” did not have novelty, and did not explicitly claim specificity. However, considering that Hubei Kang XX Industrial Company also agreed to review whether “FL218” had specificity during the invalidation review procedure and administrative litigation, the invalidation review decision protected the rights and interests of the variety right holder to defend, listened to the opinions of the variety right holder, and did not constitute a procedural violation. The specificity of a new plant variety refers to the obvious difference in characteristics between the propagation materials of the variety and the known varieties before the application date. The invalidation applicant needs to clarify the known varieties of the authorized variety and prove that the authorized variety is not obviously different from the known variety through evidence such as DNA identification results or field test results. The burden of proof shall be borne by the invalidation applicant. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company did not submit evidence to prove that the three parent varieties involved in the case were known varieties of “FL218”, nor did it have preliminary evidence to prove that “FL218” was the same variety as the three parent varieties involved in the case, and did not fulfill the burden of proof. Because it failed to prove that “FL218” did not have novelty and specificity, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

【Typical significance】

This case focuses on the legality of the procedure, clarifies the scope of the procedure for invalidation of variety rights initiated upon application, the specific identification standards and the distribution of the burden of proof in the procedure for confirmation of variety rights, and provides guidance for the review and proof in the procedure for invalidation of variety rights. This case helps to standardize the procedure for reviewing the invalidation of variety rights and promote the high-quality development of the seed industry.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

A certain high-tech company in Anhui is the owner of the new plant variety rights of “Quanyou 9311A”, “YR0822” and “Quanyou 822”. Among them, the “Quanyou 822” rice seed was developed by the company’s scientific research team. The cultivation technology and genetic information of its mother “Quan 9311A” are the company’s core secrets and have not been disclosed to the public. Strict confidentiality measures have been taken. After the trial planting of “Quanyou 822” achieved mass production, the Anhui high-tech company transferred the relevant technology to its wholly-owned subsidiary, an Anhui industrial company, which obtained the exclusive domestic production and operation rights, and the transfer contract stipulated strict confidentiality obligations for all personnel involved in the production and management of the seeds. In 2019 and 2020, a certain industrial company in Anhui signed a “Hybrid Rice Seed Production Contract” with Deng XX, the legal representative of a certain seed professional cooperative, entrusting the cooperative to produce “Tsuenyou 822” rice seeds. It clearly stipulated that the contractor should ensure that the parents will not be lost, not be bred privately, and not be used for other purposes privately, and that the seeds produced by the contract will not be lost. The contractor will bear legal responsibility for the loss of parents or private breeding. In addition, the number of mother rice parents will be issued each year based on the number of acres planted by farmers, and technicians will be stationed at the planting base to provide long-term guidance on planting, supervise production, and prevent rice seed loss. Since 2019, Deng XX, Wang XX and Huang X of a certain seed company have conspired to arrange for Huang, an employee of their cooperative, to apply for more parent “Quan 9311A” from a certain seed company in Anhui by applying more per mu, and privately bred “Quanyou 822” rice seeds outside the supervision of a certain seed company in Anhui, and handed them over to a certain seed company to sell 113,840 kilograms under a fake brand, causing a loss of 1,090,360 RMB to the certain high-tech company in Anhui. On October 11, 2023, the People’s Procuratorate of Hefei High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Anhui Province, filed a public prosecution, accusing Deng, Wang , Huang 1 and Huang 2 of obtaining the right holder’s business secrets through improper means of false reporting and fraud, violating the confidentiality obligation to use the business secrets they obtained, causing major losses to the business secret right holder, and the circumstances are serious, and they should be held criminally responsible for the crime of infringing on business secrets.

[Judgment Result]

The People’s Court of Hefei High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Anhui Province, held at first instance that Deng and Huang violated the agreement with the right holder on keeping trade secrets, privately bred rice seeds, and Wang and Huang were responsible for selling them, making illegal profits, causing major losses to the right holder of the trade secrets, and the circumstances were serious, constituting the crime of infringing trade secrets. The defendants Deng Jin, Huang , Wang Yong, and Huang were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from ten months to one year and two months , and fined between 20,000 RMB and 200,000 RMB.

【Typical significance】

The judgment in this case uses criminal means to crack down on infringements, demonstrating the judicial system’s severe punishment of seed-related crimes. By exerting the legal deterrent power of criminal sanctions, we can effectively punish and prevent seed-related crimes, improve the protection of breeding innovation, purify the seed market, and create a good innovation environment for seed companies.