To fully leverage the guiding role of typical cases and strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry, thereby promoting innovation and high-quality development in the seed industry at a high judicial level, and to provide more effective judicial services and guarantees for accelerating the revitalization of the seed industry and maintaining national food security, the Supreme People’s Court has selected 15 typical cases of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry from cases concluded by courts nationwide over the past year, which are now published.
The typical cases released this time have the following three characteristics: First, the case types are comprehensive. They involve civil, administrative, and criminal cases related to the protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry, including 13 cases of civil infringement and contract cases, 1 case of variety right authorization administrative case, and 1 criminal case. Second, the variety types are extensive. The involved plant varieties cover a wide range, including major food crops such as wheat, rice, and corn, as well as economic crops such as chili peppers, melons, and soybeans. Third, the disputed interests are significant. The economic value of the varieties involved in the cases is considerable, with the subject matter amount of 8 cases exceeding one million yuan, and some cases even reaching hundreds of millions of yuan, attracting wide attention within the industry.
The typical cases released this time reflect the following judicial orientations:
First, adhere to strict protection. Increase the intensity of criminal judicial protection and enhance legal deterrence. In the case involving the crime of infringing trade secrets by selling hybrid seed parental materials in violation of confidentiality agreements related to the “Wo Yu No. 3” corn variety, the defendant was convicted and fined for infringing trade secrets, increasing the punishment for seed-related crimes. Actively apply the punitive compensation system in accordance with the law to effectively increase the cost of infringement. Punitive damages were applied in 2 cases. In the case of infringement of the “Dan Yu No. 405” corn plant variety rights, it was clarified that the base for punitive damages, which is difficult to calculate precisely, can be determined based on the evidence in the case, and the second instance fully supported the right holder’s request for 3 million yuan in compensation. Fully utilize legal means and discretionary space to ensure the interests of variety rights holders are fully protected. In the “Li He 328” corn plant new variety infringement case, the act of selling a specific parental combination known to be used for producing hybrid seed authorized varieties was deemed as aiding and abetting the infringement of hybrid variety rights, effectively extending the enforcement of hybrid variety rights. In the “Deng Hai 605” corn plant new variety infringement case, the actual controller of the company, used as an instrument of infringement, and the company were ordered to bear joint liability, and in the “Wan Nuo 2000” corn plant new variety infringement case, the organizer leading multiple people to produce and reproduce was ordered to bear corresponding responsibility for all alleged infringing acts carried out by the organized, maximizing the protection of the right holder’s interests. In the “Audrey” chili plant new variety infringement case, the pre-agreement between the infringer and the variety right holder was used as an important reference for determining the infringement compensation, solving the problem of difficult proof in infringement compensation. In the 11 civil cases of variety rights infringement that were concluded by judgment, the compensation requests were fully supported in 4 cases, and the compensation amounts exceeded one million yuan in 4 cases.
Second, insist on proactive duty performance. Actively use mediation and settlement means to resolve disputes, achieving win-win and multiple-win outcomes. In the cases of license contract and infringement involving the “Wu Shan Si Miao” rice plant new variety, the involved enterprises were both leading companies in the seed industry with a long-term cooperation foundation, and the trial court made efforts to facilitate a settlement between the parties, completely resolving longstanding grievances and achieving mutual development.
Third, insist on collaborative enhancement. Actively promote the synergy between civil judicial protection and administrative law enforcement protection to improve the overall protection effect. In the “Yuan Ke 105” corn plant new variety infringement case, based on the local agricultural administrative department’s sampling, inspection, and site investigation records, the fact that the infringer mixed genuine and fake seeds to evade supervision was legally recognized, thereby increasing the compensation awarded. In the “He Dou 33” soybean plant new variety infringement case, based on the yield recorded in the “Quarantine Certificate of Origin” processed by the seed producer and operator, the scale of infringement was estimated to ensure that the right holder received full compensation. Supervise and support the authorization and confirmation of variety rights to promote the improvement of authorization quality. In the “Agricultural Wheat 168” wheat plant new variety authorization case, it was clarified that the determination of DUS test locations in the authorization process should be based on the descriptions of suitable growth regions and environments for the variety in the specification, combined with the variety type and breeding process and method, to ensure that the characteristics of the variety are fully expressed, providing clear judicial guidance for related authorization procedures.
Case 1: “Wushan Simiao” Rice Plant New Variety Licensing Contract and Infringement Cases [A certain agricultural high-tech company vs. Anhui certain seed industry company on plant new variety implementation licensing contract and dispute over infringement of plant new variety rights in two cases]
First Instance: Anhui Provincial Higher People’s Court (2022) Wan Min Chu No. 2, (2022) Wan Min Chu No. 3
[Basic Facts]
A certain rice research institute in Guangdong is the variety rights holder of the “Wushan Simiao” rice plant new variety. On October 24, 2011, the institute granted an exclusive implementation license for the “Wushan Simiao” rice plant new variety to a certain seed industry company in Anhui, excluding the Guangdong province area. In April 2016, the seed industry company in Anhui signed an “Agreement on the Use of the Conventional Rice Variety ‘Wushan Simiao’” with a certain agricultural high-tech company, authorizing the latter and its subsidiary, a certain seed industry company in Hunan, to use “Wushan Simiao” for compatibility testing with its own proprietary rice sterility lines. After 2018, disputes arose in the implementation of the agreement. The seed industry company in Anhui believed that the agricultural high-tech company and its subsidiary unauthorizedly reproduced and produced “Wushan Simiao” propagation materials, and repeatedly used “Wushan Simiao” as a parent to produce many hybrid rice varieties, constituting infringement. The agricultural high-tech company claimed that it had paid the full “Wushan Simiao” variety usage fee to the seed industry company in Anhui according to the agreement, and held complete production and operation rights for the 15 new hybrid rice varieties developed, including self-bred “Wushan Simiao”. The seed industry company in Anhui filed an infringement lawsuit claiming compensation of 300 million yuan against the agricultural high-tech company and its subsidiary for infringing its plant new variety rights. The agricultural high-tech company filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the seed industry company in Anhui for unilateral breach of contract, demanding continued performance of the plant new variety implementation license contract.
[Judgment Result]
The Anhui Provincial Higher People’s Court conducted an appellate review of both cases, aiming to substantively resolve the disputes. Through in-depth analysis and patient mediation, the court eventually facilitated a settlement agreement under its auspices. On November 27, 2023, the court issued a ruling allowing the parties to withdraw their respective lawsuits.
[Typical Significance]
This case is known as “China’s first major case in seed industry intellectual property,” involving top enterprises in the seed industry with complex circumstances, significant disputes, and high social attention. The People’s Court fully exercised its judicial functions, adhering to the principles of “win-win and mutual benefit” and resolving disputes thoroughly, embodying the new era’s active duty philosophy of “resolving both the case and the underlying issue for the benefit of the public”.
Case 2: “Danyu 405” Corn Plant New Variety Infringement Case [Liaoning certain seed technology company vs. Linghai certain seed technology company, Qingdao certain agrotechnology company on dispute over infringement of plant new variety rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Final No. 2907
[Basic Facts]
Liaoning certain seed technology company is the variety rights holder of the “Danyu 405” corn plant new variety. Linghai certain seed technology company, without authorization, infringed on the “Danyu 405” variety rights by using the name “Ziguang 4” after the “Danyu 405” variety was authorized and was adjudged by the court in 2015 to have committed infringement. Subsequently, in 2019 and 2020, it continued to produce and sell the “Danyu 405” variety under the names “Jinyu 118”, “Anyu 13”, and “Danyu 606”, continuing its infringing activities. Not only did Linghai certain seed technology company engage in the production with illegally obtained original seeds, but after signing an agreement with Liaoning certain seed technology company, it breached the agreement by continuing to infringe under multiple names, entrusting others to produce “Danyu 405” without a license, and repeating infringement after the court had adjudged it as such. Qingdao certain agrotechnology company was the retailer of the infringing seeds. Liaoning certain seed technology company filed an infringement lawsuit, requesting the court to order Linghai certain seed technology company and Qingdao certain agrotechnology company to cease infringement and jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3 million yuan (with 1.5 million yuan as the compensation base, calculated as double for punitive damages). The first-instance court ruled that the base for punitive damages could not be determined, applied statutory damages, and ordered Linghai certain seed technology company to cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1 million yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance believed that Linghai certain seed technology company’s infringement acts were long-lasting, widespread, large-scale, and involved repeated infringements and trademark squatting, with obvious intent and severe circumstances, meriting punitive damages. Linghai certain seed technology company admitted to illegally using 2000 kg of “Danyu 405” original seeds in 2019; in 2019, it bred 400 acres, and based on the seed quantity and sales gross profit that could be harvested from 400 acres, it essentially meets the compensation base of 1.5 million yuan claimed by Liaoning certain seed technology company. The first-instance judgment was inappropriate for not supporting the punitive damages claim due to the indeterminate compensation base. The court then fully supported Liaoning certain seed technology company’s compensation claim of 3 million yuan.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that the base for punitive damages can be determined discretely based on evidence in the case, rather than simply applying statutory compensation because it cannot be precisely calculated. The judgment reflects the People’s Court’s effort to fully implement the punitive damages system, legally reducing the difficulty of rights protection for the rights holder, effectively exerting the deterrent effect of punitive damages, and making the infringer pay a heavy price.
Case 3: “Audrey” Pepper Plant New Variety Infringement Case [A certain seedling company in Beijing vs. Chifeng certain agricultural technology company, Panshan County certain agricultural materials dealership on dispute over infringement of plant new variety rights]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Law Zhi Min Final No. 12
[Basic Facts]
A certain seedling company in Beijing is the variety rights holder of the “Audrey” pepper plant new variety. In March 2020, the company notarized the purchase of 2 packets of “Green Pepper 3756” seeds, with the packaging indicating the producer as “Chifeng certain agricultural technology company”. The seedling company in Beijing commissioned an identification of the “Green Pepper 3756” seeds against the authorized “Audrey” variety, concluding them as closely related varieties. On June 28, 2020, Chifeng certain agricultural technology company signed an “Agreement” with the seedling company in Beijing and Shouguang certain seed company, stipulating: “Chifeng certain agricultural technology company promises that from January 1, 2021, it will no longer use, produce, or sell ‘Audrey’ variety seeds and seedlings… If Chifeng certain agricultural technology company breaches the promises and obligations under this agreement, it shall pay a penalty of 2 million yuan to the seedling company in Beijing.” On April 23, 2021, the seedling company in Beijing notarized the process of pre-ordering “Green Pepper 3756” from Panshan County certain agricultural materials dealership, as well as several promotional articles posted by Chifeng certain agricultural technology company on its official website, Sohu website, and a WeChat public account named “He Run Seeds and Seedlings Company”. The seedling company in Beijing filed an infringement lawsuit, requesting the court to order Chifeng certain agricultural technology company and Panshan County certain agricultural materials dealership to cease infringement and jointly compensate the seedling company in Beijing for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.2 million yuan. The first-instance court ordered Chifeng certain agricultural technology company and Panshan County certain agricultural materials dealership to cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200,000 yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance considered that the “Agreement” stipulated the responsibilities Chifeng certain agricultural technology company should bear in the event of further infringement. After signing the “Agreement”, not only did Chifeng certain agricultural technology company not cease the already occurring infringement acts but also committed new infringement acts, clearly with the intent to infringe. Based on the established facts, it can be inferred that Chifeng certain agricultural technology company’s profits from infringement have exceeded the 2 million yuan economic loss claimed by the seedling company in Beijing, and the 2 million yuan stipulated in the agreement should be an important reference for determining the compensation amount. The court then changed the ruling, ordering Chifeng certain agricultural technology company to compensate the seedling company in Beijing for an economic loss of 2 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 10,000 yuan, with Panshan County certain agricultural materials dealership bearing joint liability for 200,000 yuan of it.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that pre-agreements on damages for potential future infringement between the infringer and the variety rights holder can serve as an important reference for determining the amount of infringement compensation in subsequent infringement disputes. This ruling not only helps solve the difficulty in proving infringement compensation but also significantly enhances the protection of the rights holder’s legitimate interests, and promotes the honest operation and good faith performance of seed companies.
Case 4: “Hedou 33” Soybean Plant New Variety Rights Infringement Case [Shandong certain seed technology company vs. Henan certain seed company, Wugang certain agricultural technology company, Yongcheng City certain agricultural trade sales department on dispute over infringement of plant new variety rights]
First Instance: Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province (2021) Yu 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 1078
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Final No. 2410
[Basic Facts]
Shandong certain seed technology company is the exclusive licensee of the “Hedou 33” soybean plant new variety licensing contract. It notarized the purchase of soybean seeds from Yongcheng City certain agricultural trade sales department, with packaging bags marked with “Zheng 9805”, “Operating Company: Henan certain seed company”, “Producing Company: Wugang certain agricultural technology company” among other texts. Scanning the “product information traceability code” on the accused seed packaging bag with a mobile phone revealed information such as “Variety Name: Zheng 9805”, “Producer/Operator: Henan certain seed company”. The 2020 “Zheng 9805” soybean seed “Origin Quarantine Certificate” issued by Wugang certain agricultural technology company specified: planting area 2000 acres, total output 600,000 kg, planting location Wugang City, Pingdingshan, Henan Province. Through identification, the accused infringing seeds and the authorized variety “Hedou 33” were found to be extremely similar or identical varieties. Shandong certain seed technology company filed an infringement lawsuit, requesting the court to order Henan certain seed company, Wugang certain agricultural technology company, and Yongcheng City certain agricultural trade sales department to cease infringement and jointly compensate for losses totaling 3.05 million yuan. The first-instance court ordered Henan certain seed company and Wugang certain agricultural technology company to compensate for economic losses of 1 million yuan; Yongcheng City certain agricultural trade sales department to compensate for economic losses of 10,000 yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance considered that the accused infringing seed packaging information and anti-counterfeiting verification matched entirely with those of Henan certain seed company and Wugang certain agricultural technology company, recognizing a joint infringement act between the two companies. According to Article 18 of the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Plant Quarantine”, administrative or even criminal responsibilities should be assumed for not processing a plant quarantine certificate according to regulations or committing fraud during the inspection process. As a professional seed operator, Wugang certain agricultural technology company should comply with the above regulations during the “Origin Quarantine Certificate” processing. In the absence of contrary evidence, the authenticity of the content recorded in the “Origin Quarantine Certificate” should be recognized; also, even if the output recorded in the “Origin Quarantine Certificate” was an estimated output, it was a reasonable estimation based on the planted area and the per-acre yield of the related variety. The first-instance court combined the planted area and total output recorded in the “Origin Quarantine Certificate”, estimating that the infringing seeds bred by Wugang certain agricultural technology company reached 600,000 kg; considering the time, scope, and types of the “Hedou 33” variety license, the selling price of the accused infringing seeds, and other factors, it was reasonable to order Henan certain seed company and Wugang certain agricultural technology company to compensate for economic losses of 1 million yuan, Yongcheng City certain agricultural trade sales department to compensate for economic losses of 10,000 yuan, without impropriety. The second-instance judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the quantity of infringing seeds can be reasonably estimated based on the “Origin Quarantine Certificate” records, thereby reasonably determining the amount of infringement compensation. The judgment demonstrates the People’s Court’s enhanced use of evidence formed during the seed administrative management and law enforcement process, actively adopting reasonable evidence and calculation methods to determine the compensation amount, ensuring the rights holder receives full compensation, and effectively protecting the rights holder’s legitimate interests.
Case 5: Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights of “Lihe328” Corn Plant【Hengji Li Seed Industry Co., Ltd. vs. Inner Mongolia Rui Seed Industry Co., Ltd., and Wengniute Banner Seed Store on the Dispute of Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights】
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhong No. 1336
[Basic Facts]
Hengji Li Seed Industry Co., Ltd. is the licensee of the implementation contract of the “Lihe328” corn plant new variety and is authorized to initiate litigation in its own name. Hengji Li Seed Industry Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming that Inner Mongolia Rui Seed Industry Co., Ltd. produced and sold seeds named “Huarui638”, which are actually “Lihe328”, infringing on its new plant variety rights. It requested a court order for Inner Mongolia Rui Seed Industry Co., Ltd. to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1 million yuan in total. During the appeal, Hengji Li Seed Industry Co., Ltd. further claimed that Inner Mongolia Rui Seed Industry Co., Ltd. continued to infringe on the new plant variety rights of “Lihe328” by selling a large number of propagation materials of the specific parental combination of “Lihe328” hybrid seeds after the first-instance judgment, requesting this to be considered in the second instance. The first-instance court ruled that Inner Mongolia Rui Seed Industry Co., Ltd. compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200,000 yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance believed that the propagation materials of a hybrid variety authorized breed refer to plant bodies that can reproduce plants with the same characteristics and properties as the hybrid variety, usually coming from the specific parental combination hybrid production of the F1 generation, not including the specific parental combination itself used to produce the hybrid variety. “Lihe328” is a hybrid variety authorized breed bred from the specific parental combination “NP01185×NP01154”, and its propagation materials refer to plant bodies with the same characteristics and properties as the “Lihe328” variety, not the specific parental combination itself used to produce “Lihe328”. The production of hybrid varieties inevitably requires the repeated use of its specific parental combination. The accused infringer, knowing that the specific parental combination is used for the production of hybrid varieties, still sells the specific parental combination, actively pursuing the consequence of others producing the hybrid variety, constituting an act of aiding others in infringing the hybrid variety’s variety rights, and should bear joint and several liabilities with the actor producing the propagation material of the hybrid variety. Inner Mongolia Rui Seed Industry Co., Ltd. constitutes infringement by helping others produce “Lihe328” by selling its specific parental combination after the first-instance judgment was issued, and the quantity is large. Considering its infringement, continued infringement, and other infringement circumstances, the request of Hengji Li Seed Industry Co., Ltd. for compensation of 1 million yuan is fully supported.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies that selling a specific parental combination known to be used for the production of authorized hybrid varieties constitutes an act of aiding others in infringing the rights of hybrid variety varieties and shall bear joint and several liability for infringement. The judgment extends the protection link of hybrid variety rights forward, reflecting the judicial attitude of the people’s courts to fully protect new plant variety rights and significantly strengthen protection efforts.
Case 6: Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights of “Denghai605” Corn Plant【Shandong Seed Industry Co., Ltd. vs. Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., and Liu Mou Tang on the Dispute of Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights】
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhong No. 293
[Basic Facts]
Shandong Seed Industry Co., Ltd. is the variety right holder of the “Denghai605” corn plant new variety. Liu Mou Tang started producing and operating seeds at the end of 2015, bought seeds packaged in white bags, then repackaged the seeds using a non-existent variety name and sold them. In 2018, Liu Mou Tang established Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., with his spouse as the sole shareholder and legal representative. After the company was established, it did not obtain a crop seed production and operation license, and its operation was mainly controlled by Liu Mou Tang. The (2021) Yu 1122 Criminal Initial No. 185 criminal judgment found that Liu Mou Tang sold seeds to Henan, Shandong, and other places using labels that did not match the seeds, with a sales amount of 112,040 yuan, constituting the crime of producing and selling counterfeit products. Shandong Seed Industry Co., Ltd. filed a civil infringement lawsuit, claiming that Liu Mou Tang and Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. jointly infringed the new plant variety rights of the involved variety and requested an immediate stop to the infringement and joint and several liability for triple punitive damages totaling 600,000 yuan. The first-instance court ruled that Liu Mou Tang compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 70,000 yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance believed that Liu Mou Tang was the actual controller of Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., which was specifically established by him for infringing activities. After the company was established, Liu Mou Tang, as the actual controller, implemented the accused infringement acts, reflecting both the will of Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. and Liu Mou Tang’s personal will, making the company a tool for Liu Mou Tang to implement the accused infringement acts. After the company was established and controlled by Liu Mou Tang mainly engaged in infringing activities, constituting infringement of variety rights as a business. Liu Mou Tang and Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. constituted joint infringement and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. At the same time, the company also engaged in the production and operation of corn seeds without obtaining a crop seed production and operation license; Liu Mou Tang also engaged in selling seeds under the names of other companies using non-existent variety names, was sentenced for producing and selling counterfeit products, indicating the serious nature of the infringement acts. Shandong Seed Industry Co., Ltd. claimed that the quantity of “Denghai605” variety rights seeds infringed by Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. and Liu Mou Tang was 5 tons, which did not significantly exceed the scale of the accused infringement acts already identified. Based on the evidence in the case, it is reasonable to infer that the profit from selling “Denghai605” was 27 yuan per kilogram, thus calculating the actual loss of the variety right holder as 135,000 yuan; based on this as the compensation base, supporting the variety right holder’s claim for triple punitive damages, and determining reasonable expenses as 60,000 yuan. Therefore, the judgment fully supported Shandong Seed Industry Co., Ltd.’s request for compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 600,000 yuan, with Liu Mou Tang and Henan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. bearing joint and several liability.
[Typical Significance]
This case focuses on explaining the issue of actual controllers and legal persons constituting joint infringement and bearing joint and several compensation
Case 7: Infringement of “Wannuo 2000” Corn Plant New Variety Rights Case [Hebei Certain Seed Company vs. An Moucheng Infringement of Plant New Variety Rights Dispute]
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Law Intellectual Property Final Case No. 2166
Basic Case Facts:
Hebei Certain Seed Company is the variety rights holder of the “Wannuo 2000” corn plant new variety. An Moucheng and seven others rented over 140 acres of land contracted by Ma Mou Shan and three other households. An Moucheng decided on the varieties to be planted, connected and provided parental lines, paid the land transfer fees to the households, and personally rented 18.7 acres of land. Testing revealed that the corn seeds planted on the leased land were very similar to or the same variety as the “Wannuo 2000” standard samples. Hebei Certain Seed Company filed a lawsuit for infringement, claiming that An Moucheng organized and led the eight people, including himself, to illegally produce and reproduce “Wannuo 2000” corn seeds on their leased land, constituting infringement. The company requested a court order for An Moucheng to immediately cease the infringement and compensate Hebei Certain Seed Company for a loss of 500,000 yuan. Hebei Certain Seed Company did not sue the other seven individuals besides An Moucheng. The first-instance court only ordered An Moucheng to bear the liability for the unauthorized illegal production and reproduction of “Wannuo 2000” on his personally contracted land.
Judgment Result:
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance held that the organizer who played an organizational and leading role in the collective act of producing and reproducing the accused infringing seeds by multiple people should bear corresponding responsibility for all the direct infringing acts committed by the organized parties. Since An Moucheng played an organizational and leading role in the seed production activities on the land contracted by the eight individuals, the total loss caused by the infringing acts of the eight did not exceed An Moucheng’s subjective foreseeability. Therefore, An Moucheng should not only be responsible for the land he contracted but also bear corresponding responsibility for the infringing acts on the land contracted by the other seven individuals. Hebei Certain Seed Company’s claim of average yield per acre did not significantly exceed the general average yield of corn seed production in the Hexi region of Gansu Province and was supported by evidence, which could be accepted. Based on the determination of the planting area, the actual loss suffered by Hebei Certain Seed Company due to the accused infringing act had already exceeded 500,000 yuan. Thus, the court fully supported Hebei Certain Seed Company’s compensation request.
Typical Significance:
This case orders the organizer to bear liability for all the plant new variety infringement acts of the organized, imposing heavier costs on the infringing organizer and leader, reflecting the legal spirit that the severity of behavior and legal responsibility should be compatible, which is conducive to accurately and effectively sanctioning infringement acts.
Case 8: Infringement of “Yuankai 105” Corn Plant New Variety Rights Case [Sannong Seed Company vs. Xinjiang Jiumu Agricultural Development Company and Others in Plant New Variety Rights Dispute]
First Instance: Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (2022) Xin 01 Intellectual Property Primary Case No. 7
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Law Intellectual Property Final Case No. 1484
Basic Case Facts:
Sannong Seed Company is the variety rights holder of the “Yuankai 105” corn plant new variety. It filed a lawsuit claiming that Xinjiang Jiumu Agricultural Development Company infringed on the “Yuankai 105” plant new variety rights under the name “Yongyu 3,” requesting the court to order Xinjiang Jiumu Agricultural Development Company to cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than 3 million yuan. Xinjiang Jiumu Agricultural Development Company’s “Yongyu 3” corn seeds sold to the public contained both genuine “Yongyu 3” corn seeds and infringing seeds identical to “Yuankai 105.” It controlled its infringing seeds by adding three red five-pointed stars “★★★” and the words “Premium Exclusive” to the seed packaging bags. The first-instance court ordered Xinjiang Jiumu Agricultural Development Company to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than 500,000 yuan.
Judgment Result:
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance held that Xinjiang Jiumu Agricultural Development Company’s act of selling genuine and counterfeit seeds under the same brand name constituted a hidden method of infringement with a clear intention to evade seed administrative supervision and legal sanctions, making it more difficult and costly for the variety rights holder to enforce rights and evidencing malicious infringement. The amount of damage compensation and reasonable expenses determined in the first-instance judgment had factual and legal bases. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was upheld.
Typical Significance:
This case identifies the infringer’s act of selling genuine and counterfeit seeds under the same brand name as highly deceptive, with a clear intention to evade infringement sanctions. The case emphasizes that similar circumstances should be given significant consideration in determining compensation amounts to enhance compensation efforts and effectively protect the legal rights of variety rights holders.
Case 9: Infringement of “Xianyu 335” Maize Plant Variety Rights [Dunhuang Seed Company vs. Jilin Seed Company and Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store on Plant Variety Rights Infringement Dispute]
Second Instance: The Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Final No. 2719
Basic Case Information
Dunhuang Seed Company, authorized by the plant variety rights holder, produced and distributed the “Xianyu 335” maize plant variety and had the right to enforce its rights in its own name. It notarized the purchase of the “Lingdan 86” maize hybrid seeds, which were labeled as produced by Jilin Seed Company, from a Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store and sent them to the Beijing Maize Testing Center for inspection. The conclusion was that the seeds were extremely similar to or the same as the authorized “Xianyu 335” variety. Dunhuang Seed Company filed a lawsuit claiming that the production and sales activities of Jilin Seed Company and Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store infringed upon its legitimate rights and interests, requesting a court order for the cessation of infringement and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling one million yuan. During the trial, Jilin Seed Company argued that it provided Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store with ten replacement packaging bags to prevent damage to the original packaging bags based on a genuine transaction of its own legal variety, and thus, there was no infringement. Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store admitted that the accused infringing seeds were sold after being repackaged in Jilin Seed Company’s packaging bags without authorization. The first-instance court ordered Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store to compensate for economic losses of 200,000 yuan.
Judgment Result
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance held that the packaging bags of the seeds in question bore the logo of “Jilin Seed Industry” on both the front and back, and the bottom of the bags and the results of scanning the WeChat QR code indicated that the producer and operator was “Jilin Seed Company”. Jilin Seed Company failed to provide evidence proving that the seeds packaged and sold in its packaging bags by Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store did not originate from Jilin Seed Company, and thus it should be recognized as the producer of the seeds in question. Even if Jilin Seed Company’s provision of packaging bags to Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store was true, knowing that Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store did not have a seed production and operation license and was not qualified to repackage and sell bulk seeds but still provided it with packaging bags without exercising any oversight duties, its laissez-faire attitude towards the repackaging of other seeds into these bags objectively led to the occurrence of damage and should bear corresponding legal responsibility. Given Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store’s admission of its involvement in counterfeiting infringement, it was determined that Jilin Seed Company and Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store jointly committed the infringement. Consequently, the court ruled that Jilin Seed Company and Huadian Agricultural Supplies Store cease infringement and jointly compensate Dunhuang Seed Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200,000 yuan.
Typical Significance
The second-instance judgment in this case emphasizes that seed packaging is an important aspect of production and business management, and seed production enterprises should strictly control it, being responsible for the authenticity of the information marked on the packaging bags and the quality of the seeds inside. The second-instance judgment clarified that, in general, the seed producer can be determined based on the information marked on the seed packaging bag. Courts should not easily accept defenses by seed producers that they provided empty packaging bags to retailers to prevent damage without participating in the infringement, nor should they exempt them from infringement liability on this basis alone. This judgment serves as a reference for strictly regulating seed packaging and label management and purifying the seed industry market.
Case 10: Infringement Case of “Zhongke No.5” New Rice Plant Variety [Wuchang Certain Seed Company vs. Qianguo County Certain Seed Company and Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store on Dispute Over New Plant Variety Rights]
First Instance: Changchun Intermediate People’s Court of Jilin Province (2022) Ji 01 Zhi Min Chu 21
[Basic Case Facts]
Wuchang Certain Seed Company is the exclusive licensee of the “Zhongke No.5” new rice plant variety. The actual controller of Qianguo County Certain Seed Company is Wang, whose company’s crop seed production and operation license does not include the “Zhongke No.5” rice variety. Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store, operated by Wang as an individual industrial and commercial household, is the designated seller of Qianguo County Certain Seed Company. Wuchang Certain Seed Company purchased 50 Jin of “Zhongfa 5” seeds from Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store, which were identified as extremely similar or identical to the “Zhongke No.5” variety. Wuchang Certain Seed Company filed a lawsuit claiming that Qianguo County Certain Seed Company and Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store infringed the rights of the “Zhongke No.5” variety, requesting a court order for the two to cease infringement and jointly compensate for economic losses of 900,000 yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Changchun Intermediate People’s Court of Jilin Province in the first instance held that Qianguo County Certain Seed Company, without permission, produced “Zhongke No.5” rice seeds, which constituted an infringement of new plant variety rights and should bear legal liability for infringement. Wang, as the actual controller of Qianguo County Certain Seed Company and the actual operator of Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store, confessed during interrogation by the local police department that the accused infringing “Zhongfa 5” rice seeds were obtained through his own cultivation. The seeds’ production base, processing equipment, and storage warehouse all belonged to Qianguo County Certain Seed Company. The accused infringing seeds were sold externally by Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store, the designated seller of Qianguo County Certain Seed Company. Since one was involved in production and the other in sales, and the two collaborated and cooperated, there was a common intent for joint infringement, hence both should legally bear joint liability. Considering the type of the involved new plant variety rights, the scale of infringement, sales price, nature of the infringement act, circumstances, and the reasonable expenses of the variety right holder, it was appropriately determined that Qianguo County Certain Seed Company and Qianguo County Certain Agrochemical Store shall jointly compensate Wuchang Certain Seed Company for 150,000 yuan. After the first instance verdict, none of the parties appealed.
[Typical Significance]
This judgment points out that different entities clearly divide their work in the production and sale process of authorized variety propagation material and cooperate with each other, should be recognized as constituting joint infringement. The People’s Court based on the facts recognized that the producer and seller have a joint intention and ordered them to bear joint liability, providing more comprehensive legal protection for the variety rights holder.
Case 11: Infringement Case of “Boyuan 9” Melon New Plant Variety [Tianjin Certain Seed Company vs. Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company and Liu Mousheng on Dispute Over Temporary Protection Period Usage Fee and Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights]
First Instance: Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province (2022) Lu 02 Zhi Min Chu 160
Second Instance: The Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhong 478
[Basic Case Facts]
Tianjin Certain Seed Company is the variety right holder of the “Boyuan 9” melon new plant variety. It claimed that Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company, without authorization, sold melon seeds named “Boyuan 9”. Liu Mousheng is the sole shareholder and actual controller of Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company, and should bear joint liability for the company’s infringement act, requesting the court to order Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company and Liu Mousheng to immediately cease infringement, and pay a temporary protection period usage fee of 500,000 yuan, economic losses due to infringement of 1 million yuan, and reasonable expenses of 42,900 yuan. The first-instance court ruled that Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company should pay Tianjin Certain Seed Company a temporary protection period usage fee of 30,000 yuan, compensate for economic losses of 120,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 26,900 yuan, with Liu Mousheng bearing joint liability.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance held that if buyers legally obtain seeds from the variety right holder or a person authorized by them, and then sell the seedlings cultivated from the seeds, it does not constitute an infringement act; however, if the seeds used to cultivate the seedlings have no evidence proving they come from the variety right holder, the production, reproduction, and sales activities of cultivating seedlings from illegally sourced seeds constitute infringement. Although it was found that Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company and Liu Mousheng purchased a total of 60,000 “Boyuan 9” melon seeds from a legal distributor of Tianjin Certain Seed Company, their external promotion claimed that they sold three to four hundred thousand “Boyuan 9” seedlings a year, obviously exceeding the number of seeds they legally purchased. Thus, the first-instance judgment that determined Shouguang City Certain Seedling Company and Liu Mousheng engaged in production, sales, and promising to sell activities that infringed the “Boyuan 9” variety rights is not inappropriate; the judgment for them to jointly bear the payment of temporary protection period usage fees, compensation for infringement losses, and reasonable expenses stopping infringement totaling 176,900 yuan is also proper. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the original judgment was upheld.
[Typical Significance]
This judgment clarifies the issue of whether selling vegetable and fruit seedlings cultivated from purchased seeds constitutes exhaustion of rights. It also affirms that when the sales quantity far exceeds the scope of exhaustion of rights, it still constitutes infringement, and the quantity of sales promoted by the accused infringer can be used as a basis for determining the amount of compensation. This judgment is beneficial for strengthening judicial protection of variety rights holders and promoting honest and standardized operation among market operators.
Case 12: Infringement Case of the New Plant Variety “Ao Tian Nuo 75” Corn【Tianjin Ao Seeds Co., Ltd. vs. Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd., and Hechuan District Mou Hui Agricultural Resources Management Department on New Plant Variety Rights Dispute】
First Instance: Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (2022) Su 01 Min Chu No. 3881
[Basic Case Facts]
Tianjin Ao Seeds Co., Ltd., the licensee of the ordinary implementation license of the “Ao Tian Nuo 75” corn variety, authorized to file an infringement lawsuit in its own name, purchased 3 bags of “You Sheng” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” corn seeds from Hechuan District Mou Hui Agricultural Resources Management Department under notarized sale, which were identified as the authorized variety of “Ao Tian Nuo 75”. The seed bags indicated Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd. as the producer and Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. as the repackaging and distributor. Tianjin Ao Seeds Co., Ltd. filed an infringement lawsuit, demanding Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd., and Hechuan District Mou Hui Agricultural Resources Management Department to stop infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan. Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. defended that the accused infringement seeds were actually “Liu Chao” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” originally packaged by Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd., and sold after repackaging, claiming this did not constitute infringement. Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd. acknowledged the sale of “Liu Chao” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” corn seeds to Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., but argued that the repackaging and sale of “You Sheng” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” corn seeds by Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. was done without its consent, and that “Liu Chao” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” corn seeds were different varieties from the authorized variety “Ao Tian Nuo 75”.
[Judgment Result]
The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province in the first instance ruled that the behavior of Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. changing the original packaging of Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd.’s “Liu Chao” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” variety to “You Sheng” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” packaging does not fall under the legally stipulated situations that allow for repackaging, and belongs to the production and operation of fake seeds. There was no evidence to prove that the involved “You Sheng” brand corn seeds came from Nanjing Mou Tian Seed Industry Co., Ltd., and the “Liu Chao” brand “Tian Jia Nuo 968” corn seeds were distinctly different from the “Ao Tian Nuo 75” corn seeds, being different varieties. Therefore, it was judged that Chongqing You Sheng Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. should stop infringement and compensate Tianjin Ao Seeds Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 120,000 yuan. After the first instance verdict, none of the parties filed an appeal.
[Typical Significance]
This judgment identifies the defense of repackaging and selling seeds produced by others without proving the true source of the seeds as the production and operation behavior of the accused infringer, serving as a reference for cracking down on illegal repackaging and concealing infringement actions, and promoting the normative operation of the market.
Case 13: Dispute Over the Contract of New Plant Variety Rights for “Ji Mai 22” Wheat 【Shandong Certain Seed Company vs. Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company on the Dispute of New Plant Variety Implementation License Contract】
First Instance: Jinan Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province (2022) Lu 01 Min Chu No. 271
Second Instance: Shandong Higher People’s Court (2022) Lu Min Zhong No. 2117
[Basic Case Information]
A research institute in Shandong Province signed a “New Plant Variety Development and Operation Agreement” with Shandong Certain Seed Company, granting the exclusive license to exercise the variety rights of “Ji Mai 22” to Shandong Certain Seed Company. It also agreed that Shandong Certain Seed Company could sublicense or allow others to produce and operate in other forms. Subsequently, Shandong Certain Seed Company signed an agreement with Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company, authorizing the latter to produce and operate “Ji Mai 22” and other wheat seeds. It was agreed that the scope of operations for “Ji Mai 22” wheat seeds produced by the latter would be limited to Guan County, with the method of operation being the unified wheat seed supply project’s household supply model. If the latter unauthorizedly sold the seeds through market sales channels or continued sales after the termination of the unified wheat seed supply project in Guan County, Shandong Certain Seed Company had the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement. The agricultural technology promotion fees and performance guarantees already collected would not be refunded, and Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company would also have to pay a penalty of 500,000 to 3,000,000 yuan. During the contract’s execution, Shandong Certain Seed Company purchased “Ji Mai 22” produced by Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company in multiple locations outside Guan County. Shandong Certain Seed Company sued Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company for breach of contract, requesting the termination of the involved agreement, cessation of production, breeding, and sales of “Ji Mai 22” wheat variety by Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company, and payment of a total of 1.5 million yuan for penalties and reasonable expenses, with the 30,000 yuan performance guarantee paid by Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company not to be refunded. The first-instance court ruled to terminate the involved agreement and ordered Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company to pay Shandong Certain Seed Company a penalty of 500,000 yuan, with the 30,000 yuan performance guarantee not refunded.
[Judgment Result]
The Shandong Higher People’s Court in the second instance held that the involved agreement specified the scope and method of operation for “Ji Mai 22” wheat seeds produced by Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company, and stipulated that Shandong Certain Seed Company had the right to terminate the contract under specific conditions. Shandong Certain Seed Company’s purchase of “Ji Mai 22” wheat seeds outside Guan County through market channels, despite Liaocheng Certain Seed Industry Company’s claim that other distributors had sold the seeds outside Guan County, lacked evidence. The agreement clearly stated that such actions constituted a breach of contract. The claim that it did not constitute a breach of contract could not be established, and it should bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract. Shandong Certain Seed Company had the right to request the termination of the agreement. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was upheld.
[Typical Significance]
This case supports the breeders’ demands for the licensee to bear liability for breach of contract according to law by accurately defining the scope of rights and obligations between the breeder and the licensee, demonstrating the effective protection of variety rights from a contract law perspective.
Case 14: Authorization Case of New Plant Variety “Nong Mai 168” Wheat 【Jiangsu Shen Certain Seed Industry Technology Company vs. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Plant New Variety Reexamination Committee on the Reexamination of Plant New Variety Application Rejection Administrative Dispute】
Second Instance: Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Court Zhi Xing Zhong No. 95
[Basic Case Information]
Jiangsu Shen Certain Seed Industry Technology Company was the applicant for the new plant variety named “Nong Mai 168” wheat. The Plant New Variety Reexamination Committee maintained its decision to reject the variety application. Jiangsu Shen Certain Seed Industry Technology Company appealed, mainly arguing that the selection of Nanjing as the testing site by the Plant Variety DUS Testing Report (Nanjing Branch) was incorrect. The first-instance court ruled to revoke the decision and ordered the Plant New Variety Reexamination Committee to make a new decision. The Plant New Variety Reexamination Committee appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court in the second instance held that the determination of DUS testing sites should be based on the applicant’s description of the variety’s suitable growth region and environment in the specification, combined with the variety type and the breeding process and method, to ensure that the characteristics of the variety are fully expressed. The application form and specification indicated that “Nong Mai 168” was suitable for growth in areas north of the Huai River in Jiangsu Province; based on its breeding location, the area capable of expressing the variety’s characteristics also included Jianhu County in Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, south of the Huai River. When multiple testing sites are available, considering administrative efficiency and testing convenience, the testing site can be determined in a centralized and nearby manner, ensuring the characteristics of the variety are fully expressed. Whether selecting Nanjing Branch as the testing institution could ensure the full expression of “Nong Mai 168’s” characteristics could be further evidenced by its cultivation performance compared to similar varieties. The similar variety “Huai Mai 21” underwent two complete growth cycles of testing at Nanjing Branch, with normal growth and development stages, and the trait description table showing that 36 basic traits could be expressed within a reasonable range, consistently across two growth cycles. The traits expressed during the growth and development of “Nong Mai 168” and “Huai Mai 21” were not affected by the testing site and were fully expressed, further indicating that the determination of Nanjing Branch as the testing institution and the testing site was appropriate. Therefore, the first-instance judgment was revoked, and Jiangsu Shen Certain Seed Industry Technology Company’s lawsuit request was dismissed.
[Typical Significance]
This case is the first administrative case reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court involving the determination of DUS testing sites in the plant new variety authorization procedure, clarifying that the determination of DUS testing sites should ensure that the characteristics of the variety are fully expressed as the fundamental requirement.
Case 15: Infringement of Commercial Secrets Crime Related to the Parental Lines of “Woyu No. 3” Corn Variety
First Instance: Feixiang District People’s Court of Handan City, Hebei Province (2023) Ji 0407 Criminal Initial No. 56
[Basic Facts]
The corn variety “Woyu No. 3” (female parent M51 × male parent VK22-4) was bred by a seed company in Hebei and approved by the Shanxi Provincial Crop Variety Approval Committee on July 2, 2013, obtaining a variety approval certificate. On June 4, 2019, the Hebei seed company applied for plant variety rights for the VK22 and M51 varieties, and was authorized on December 30, 2021. Before applying for and obtaining the variety rights, the Hebei seed company took measures to keep the breeding materials of the parents of the “Woyu No. 3” corn variety confidential, established a commercial secrets management code, and treated it as their core commercial secret. The Hebei seed company signed annual production contracts with a seed company in Zhangye City, Gansu Province, stipulating that the Zhangye seed company was responsible for keeping the seed production parental materials of “Woyu No. 3” corn variety confidential and properly stored, and must not retain, propagate privately, gift, sell, etc. In 2021, the legal representative of the seed company in Zhangye City, Gansu Province, defendant Zhang, sold 930 kilograms of “Woyu No. 3” parents to Cui, violating the contract with the Hebei seed company. Cui handed these parents over to Fan in Xinjiang for planting. Fan produced 134,200 kilograms of “Woyu No. 3” corn seeds, which were recovered and sold by Cui. Judicial identification determined that Zhang’s breach of contract and sale of the parental lines of “Woyu No. 3” corn variety caused the Hebei seed company an economic loss of 499,725.24 yuan. Also, the breeding materials for the male and female parents of the “Woyu No. 3” corn variety were not known to the public before August 7, 2022.
[Judgment Outcome]
The Feixiang District People’s Court of Handan City, Hebei Province, in the first instance, held that the breeding materials of the male and female parents of the “Woyu No. 3” corn variety were the core commercial secrets of the Hebei seed company. The defendant Zhang violated the confidentiality obligation, causing significant loss to the Hebei seed company, with serious circumstances, clear facts, and sufficient evidence, constituting a crime of infringing commercial secrets, and the public prosecution’s charge was established. Defendant Zhang voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, and was given a lenient punishment according to law. The defendant Zhang obtained the victim’s forgiveness and was given a lighter punishment according to law. The defense counsel’s argument that the defendant was a first-time offender, had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, and obtained the victim’s forgiveness was accepted. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced to eight months in prison and fined one hundred thousand yuan. The defendant did not appeal the first-instance judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case recognizes the act of selling hybrid seed parental breeding materials in violation of confidentiality agreements as a criminal offense of infringing commercial secrets and pursues criminal responsibility according to law. The judgment highlights the strict punishment of illegal and criminal activities in the seed industry, strengthens the criminal protection of commercial secrets, especially parental breeding materials’ intellectual property rights in the seed industry, and effectively maintains the economic order of the seed industry market.
绿洲慧写 | AI 辅助专利撰写专家 