China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases Five Typical Cases on New Plant Variety Protection Ahead of World Food Day 2026

On October 14, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released five Typical Cases of Plant Variety Protection by People’s Courts, timed to coincide with National Food Security Publicity Week (2026年全国粮食安全宣传周人民法院植物新品种保护典型案例). Typical cases are not binding precedent, but are curated and published by the SPC to illustrate how it wants a given area of law approached, signaling substantive and procedural standards to lower courts, litigants, and the public.

The five cases released here cover both staple grain crops—rice, wheat, and maize—and specialty crops such as passion fruit and blueberry, reflecting the SPC’s stated aim of protecting breeders’ rights in support of national food security.

Across the cases, several themes recur. Courts applied punitive damages in two cases and awarded rights holders their full requested damages in two others, including a case where a Spanish blueberry breeder received equal protection against a Chinese infringer found to have engaged in infringement since its founding. Several cases eased the rights holder’s evidentiary burden by relying on the infringer’s own public marketing claims, or admissions made in parallel litigation, to establish the scale of infringement rather than requiring direct proof. One case addressed “shell-switching,” holding that a successor business entity with overlapping premises, staff, and operations bears liability for its predecessor’s infringement after deregistration. Another applied agronomic growing-cycle reasoning to infer that infringing production began before a patent term expired, holding that post-expiration sales of seed produced during the protected period still constitute infringement.

A translation of the SPC-provided explanation of the 5 typical cases follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).

Case 1

　　The scale of infringement should be reasonably determined based on the infringer’s public statements.

　　—Case concerning the provisional protection period fee for the new passion fruit variety “Qinguo No. 9” and infringement of plant variety rights

　　[Basic Case Facts]

　　”Qingguo No. 9″ is a new passion fruit plant variety jointly owned by an agricultural research institute and Qin XX Company. Qin XX Company is authorized to pursue its rights independently. During the application stage, the variety was named “Qingmi No. 9.” Later, due to a third party registering the “Qingmi” trademark for goods in Class 31 and filing a name objection, the variety rights holder, with the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, changed the variety name to “Qingguo No. 9.” Huan XX Company, a sole proprietorship established by Liang, without permission during the temporary protection period for the “Qingguo No. 9” variety, propagated it on a large scale and promoted and sold the seedlings under the name “Qingmi No. 9” passion fruit through online platforms and offline channels. Notarized sampling and MNP molecular identification confirmed that the accused infringing seedlings are the same variety as “Qingguo No. 9.” Huan XX Company argued that the variety in question had been promoted by the government, constituting tacit free use by the rights holder; the “Qingmi” trademark had already been registered and used by a third party; and denied large-scale production and sales.

　　[Judgment Result]

　　The court of first instance held that Huan XX Company produced and sold infringing seedlings without permission during the temporary protection period of “Qinguo No. 9,” and ordered Huan XX Company to pay a total of 600,000 RMB in licensing fees and reasonable expenses, with Liang, the sole shareholder, bearing joint liability. The court did not support Qin XX Company’s claim to cease infringement and destroy the seedlings. All parties appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, determined that, based on the evidence presented by Huan XX Company, including its publicly disclosed base scale, signed orders, and business promotion, Qin XX Company’s claim of 2 million infringing seedlings was reasonable. Using the licensing fee of 3.8 RMB per seedling collected by Qin XX Company from selling “Qinguo No. 9” seedlings as a benchmark, the court fully supported Qin XX Company’s claim for 7.6 million RMB in temporary protection fees and over 7,000 yuan in reasonable expenses for rights protection; Liang, the sole shareholder, was held jointly liable. Regarding Huan XX Company’s appeal claiming the use of a third party’s registered trademark, the second instance ruling held that trademark rights could not be used as a legal basis for breeding and selling seedlings with the same name. Regarding Huan XX Company’s appeal that Qin XX Company’s cooperation with industry promotion policies indicated a free license, the second instance court held that the variety rights holder’s cooperation with industry promotion does not automatically constitute implied permission in a legal sense. Huan XX Company continued to promote “Qinguo No. 9” after the authorization, which constitutes continuous infringement, and should be ordered to cease the infringement. Given the asexual reproduction characteristics of passion fruit varieties, Huan XX Company should have taken measures such as uprooting, deep burial, or physical crushing to inactivate the infringing seedlings.

　　[Typical Significance]

　　This case exemplifies the principle of strictly protecting plant variety rights while effectively reducing the burden of proof on rights holders. Based on the infringer’s publicly disclosed business information, the court determined the quantity of infringing production. The second instance judgment overturned the initial ruling, fully supporting the plant variety rights holder’s claim for compensation, thus strictly regulating large-scale seedling breeding and sales of infringing products. Simultaneously, the case clarifies the boundaries between trademark rights and plant variety rights, reasonably defines the legal limits between government industry support policies and implied civil licenses, and appropriately addresses complex legal issues in seed industry judicial practice. Regarding asexually propagated varieties, the case establishes judicial norms for the inactivation of infringing seedlings, clarifying that infringing seedlings in stock can be destroyed through methods such as root cutting, crushing, and deep burial, preventing the re-entry of infringing seedlings into the market and preventing secondary infringement.

　　Case Number

　　Second Instance: 最高人民法院（2025）最高法知民终169号

　　Case 2

　　Establishing a business and primarily engaging in infringement can be considered “making a living by infringing.”

　　—The Plablue1542 blueberry plant variety infringement case

　　[Basic Case Facts]

　　A Spanish plant company [presumably Plantas de Navarra, S.A.] is the holder of the plant variety rights for the blueberry variety “Plablue1542”. An agricultural company is the licensee of this variety in China and is authorized to pursue legal action in its own name. A planting base established on July 18, 2024, has been continuously promoting and selling blueberry seedlings on its WeChat Moments since July of that year and on its Douyin [TikTok] account since September of the same year, showcasing numerous seedling nurseries, bottled seedlings, and saplings. On July 30 of the same year, the agricultural company, through notarized evidence collection, went to the planting base to purchase the allegedly infringing blueberry seedlings. The base had a large number of blueberry seedlings planted. The sales staff used “Spanish 42” to refer to the allegedly infringing variety on-site, claiming that the blueberry seedlings they cultivated included “42” and several other varieties, with a single batch totaling 120,000 seedlings. They also claimed that “the branches were secretly obtained through connections” and that “the 42 seedlings were bottled seedlings obtained from a company that breeds seedlings for the agricultural company.” Of the 120,000 blueberry seedlings, 20,000 were of the allegedly infringing variety, and another blueberry variety comprised half of all the seedlings. The planting base failed to provide a reasonable explanation or evidence regarding the legally permitted source of this other variety. Testing revealed that the allegedly infringing blueberry seedlings purchased by the agricultural company were extremely similar to or identical to “Plablue1542”.

　　[Judgment Result]

　　The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court of Yunnan Province held in the first instance that a certain planting base knowingly produced, propagated, sold, and offered for sale the allegedly infringing blueberry seedlings without permission, demonstrating intent to infringe. In addition to producing and propagating the allegedly infringing blueberry variety, the planting base also produced another variety without permission, and this variety accounted for half of the batches cultivated. Therefore, it could be presumed that over 67% of the blueberry seedlings produced, propagated, and sold by the planting base were unauthorized and constituted infringing seedlings, thus constituting a business of infringing variety rights. Based on this, the court applied punitive damages, ordering the planting base to compensate the agricultural company for economic losses totaling 144,000 RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 10,000 RMB. The planting base appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the planting base knowingly produced, propagated, sold, and offered for sale the “Spanish 42” variety it sold without permission, demonstrating intent to infringe. Besides the allegedly infringing blueberry variety, another blueberry variety accounted for more than half of the blueberry plants grown at the plantation. Considering the sales personnel’s statements regarding the source of the branches and propagation materials, and their failure to provide reasonable explanations or evidence regarding the source, it can be determined that the aforementioned blueberry seedlings were obtained illegally. Since the plantation obtained blueberry propagation materials illegally for production and propagation from its inception, and the majority of the blueberry varieties were produced without permission, it should be considered to have engaged in “infringement as a business,” and punitive damages should be applied according to law. Therefore, the second-instance judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

　　[Typical Significance]

　　This case is a typical example of the People’s Court’s equal protection of the innovative achievements of breeders both in China and abroad. This case refines the judicial standards for determining “making a living through infringement,” and, considering the facts that the infringing party began its infringing activities from its inception and that the majority of the seedlings produced were of unauthorized infringing varieties, the court determined that the infringing party constituted making a living through infringement and applied punitive damages. This strengthens the crackdown on infringement at the source of seed and seedling propagation and fully demonstrates my country’s judicial stance of strictly and equally protecting intellectual property rights in the seed industry.

　　Case Number

　　First Instance: 云南省昆明市中级人民法院（2025）云01知民初1号

　　Second Instance: 最高人民法院（2025）最高法知民终469号

　　　Case 3

　　The scale of infringing seed production was determined based on the statements made by the infringer in related cases.

　　—The “Zhongke 804” Rice Plant Variety Infringement Case

　　[Basic Case Facts]

　　The application date for the new rice variety “Zhongke 804” was June 22, 2016, and the authorization date was December 19, 2019. A certain agricultural company is the exclusive licensee of the “Zhongke 804” rice variety. In January 2025, through notarized evidence preservation, it obtained rice seeds named “Zhonglongjing 13” sold by an agricultural input market. These seeds were produced by Hong XX Company in 2024 and sold to the same agricultural input market. Testing showed that “Zhonglongjing 13” is extremely similar to or identical to the authorized variety “Zhongke 804”. The “Zhonglongjing 13” rice variety underwent two growth cycle tests from 2021 to 2022 and passed national approval in 2023. In a related lawsuit filed by a certain agricultural company based on “Zhongke 804” against Hong XX Company’s seed production activities in 2023, Hong XX Company stated that the amount of “Zhonglongjing 13” produced in 2024 was “approximately several million catties”.

　　[Judgment Result]

　　The court of first instance found that the production and sale of “Zhonglongjing 13” rice seeds by Hong XX Company and the sale of “Zhonglongjing 13” rice seeds by a certain agricultural supply store both constituted infringement. The court ordered Hong XX Company and the agricultural supply store to cease infringement and ordered Hong XX Company to compensate the seed company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling over 100,000 RMB. Both the seed company and Hong XX Company appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that whether the allegedly infringing variety is an approved variety generally does not affect the determination of infringement; the infringement of variety rights cannot be denied solely on the grounds that a later-developed variety has been approved. The application and approval of the “Zhonglongjing 13” rice variety were both later than the authorization of the authorized variety “Zhongke 804.” Therefore, Hong XX Company’s appeal that its production and sale of the approved variety “Zhonglongjing 13” did not constitute infringement was untenable. In a related case, Hong XX Company stated that it produced several million jin of “Zhonglongjing 13” seed in 2024. In this case, it failed to provide evidence to refute its statement in the related case. Based on its statements in the related case, the quantity of infringing seeds in this case can be determined to be at least 1 million jin. Furthermore, based on the sales price Hong XX Company paid to a certain agricultural supply store, and deducting the reasonable cost for a certain agricultural company to produce the same seeds, Hong XX Company’s infringing profit was calculated to be 1.4 yuan/jin. Therefore, the second instance court revised the judgment, ordering Hong XX Company to compensate the agricultural company for economic losses of 1.4 million RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 50,000 RMB.

　　[Typical Significance]

　　This case is a typical example of how the People’s Court has addressed the burden of proof for plant variety rights holders and increased the amount of compensation for infringement. The case clarifies that the approval of a variety does not automatically preclude the determination of infringement of a new plant variety. In the stage of ascertaining the facts of the infringement loss, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from the infringer, the appellate court reasonably accepted the planting scale stated by the infringer in related cases involving the same variety, significantly reducing the burden of proof for the rights holder and thereby substantially increasing the amount of compensation awarded, effectively compensating the rights holder for their losses.

　　Case Number

　　Second Instance: 最高人民法院（2026）最高法知民终106号

　　Case 4

　　”Repackaging” and infringing on intellectual property rights will inevitably lead to legal consequences.

　　—The “Yuanke 105” maize plant variety infringement case

　　[Basic Case Facts]

　　San XX Seed Industry Company is the holder of the plant variety rights for the hybrid corn variety “Yuanke 105”. On January 3, 2024, employees of San XX Seed Industry Company purchased two bags of “Huake 605” seeds from Hai XX Seedling Shop. Testing revealed that these seeds were the same variety as “Yuanke 105”. The owners of Hai XX Seedling Shop, Zhao XX Feng and Ji XX Hua, a married couple, stored the allegedly infringing seeds in a warehouse belonging to Hua XX Farmers Cooperative, of which Zhao was the legal representative. On January 12, after receiving a complaint from San XX Seed Industry Company, the local agricultural and rural affairs department planned to conduct an on-site inspection of the warehouse. Zhao and Ji refused to open the warehouse. On January 22, Hai XX Seedling Shop was deregistered. On January 23, Ji registered a new business Tian XX Seed Industry (a sole proprietorship), with the same registered address as Hai XX Seedling Shop. In the early morning of January 27, all the seeds in the warehouse were transferred. Zhao XX Feng stated that the allegedly infringing seeds in the warehouse were purchased from Zhao XX Jun and were intended for personal use of members of Hua XX Farmers Cooperative. San XX Seed Industry Company filed a lawsuit claiming that the aforementioned entities constituted joint infringement and requested the court to order each entity to cease infringement and bear punitive damages.

　　[Judgment Result]

　　The court of first instance ruled that Ji XX Hua, Zhao XX Feng, and Hua XX Farmers’ Cooperative should jointly pay 385,000 RMB in damages, and Zhao XX Jun should pay 100,000 RMB in damages. The court did not support the punitive damages claim of San XX Seed Industry Company. San XX Seed Industry Company, Hua XX Farmers’ Cooperative, Ji  XX Hua, and Zhao XX Feng all appealed the first-instance judgment. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second-instance judgment, held that Hai XX Seedling Shop and Tian XX Seed Industry shared characteristics of simultaneous establishment and deregistration, overlapping locations, identical personnel, and continuous business operations. Based on the standard of high probability, it was sufficient to determine that the establishment of Tian XX Seed Industry was a natural continuation of the original Hai XX Seedling Shop’s business activities, and Tian XX Seed Industry should bear responsibility for the tortious acts committed by the original Hai XX Seedling Shop. Zhao XX Jun, Tian XX Seed Industry (Haishan Seed Shop), Ji XX Hua, Zhao XX Feng, and Hua XX Farmers’ Cooperative constituted joint tortfeasors. In this case, all tortfeasors had the intent to infringe and their acts were serious; therefore, punitive damages should be applied. Considering the different subjective intentions of the infringers, Tian XX Seed Industry (Hai XX Seedling Shop), Ji XX Hua, Zhao XX Feng, and Hua XX Farmers Cooperative had a concerted intention to infringe, while Zhao XX Jn did not have a concerted intention with the other infringers. Therefore, punitive damages should be calculated separately for Zhao XX Jun and the other infringers, and they should bear joint and several liability for the compensatory damages. The second instance judgment was revised: Ji XX Hua, Zhao XX Feng, Hua XX Farmers Cooperative, and Tian XX Seed Industry should bear three times the punitive damages and jointly and severally compensate the three seed companies for economic losses of 777,000 RMB, with Zhao XX Jun bearing joint and several liability for 259,000 RMB of this amount; Zhao XX Jun should bear two times the punitive damages and compensate the three seed companies for economic losses of 384,800 RMB, with Ji XX Hua, Zhao Xx Feng, Hua XX Farmers Cooperative, and Tian Seed Industry bearing joint and several liability for 192,400 RMB of this amount. Furthermore, all tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for 85,000 RMB in reasonable legal expenses incurred by San XX Seed Industry Company in the protection of its rights.

　　[Typical Significance]

　　This case addresses prominent issues in the seed industry, such as rampant counterfeiting, complex multi-layered distribution chains, infringers using deceptive tactics like “swapping shells” to evade investigation and transfer of infringing evidence, and the mutual shifting of responsibility. The judgment fully demonstrates the people’s courts’ judicial stance of severely punishing seed industry infringement and strictly protecting breeding innovations. While applying punitive damages according to law, the case clarifies the division of joint and several liability in cases of joint infringement without intent to collude, ensuring that tort liability matches subjective fault and the degree of harm caused by the act. This provides judicial guidance for the proper adjudication of multi-party infringement cases in the seed industry chain.

　　Case Number

　　Second Instance: 最高人民法院（2025）最高法知民终201号

　　Case 5

　　The time of infringement should be reasonably estimated based on the plant growth cycle.

　　—The “Jimai 22” wheat plant variety infringement case

　　[Basic Case Facts]

　　The new wheat variety “Jimai 22” was authorized on May 1, 2009, with a protection period of 15 years.  Company A was the exclusive licensee of this variety. After the expiration of the protection period, on August 21, 2024, Company A purchased “Jimai 22” wheat seeds produced by Company B through notarization. Company A filed a lawsuit against Company B, alleging that Company B had produced, propagated, and sold propagation material of “Jimai 22” without authorization.

　　[Judgment Result]

　　The court of first instance held that Company B, by producing and propagating “Jimai 22” wheat seeds during the plant variety rights protection period, infringed upon the plant variety rights in question and should bear civil liability for compensation for losses. Considering factors such as the expiration of the “Jimai 22” protection period, the court ordered Company B to compensate for losses and reasonable expenses incurred in protecting its rights, totaling 50,000 RMB. Both Company A and Company B appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that although Company A’s evidence collection occurred after the expiration of the variety rights protection period, according to the planting cycle and growth and reproduction patterns of “Jimai 22,” the seeds should have begun production no later than October 2023; otherwise, Company B would not have been able to commence sales three months after the expiration of the variety rights protection period. Company B had already begun producing and propagating the allegedly infringing seeds during the protection period of the “Jimai 22” variety rights. Its sales activities after the expiration of the protection period constituted a natural continuation of its production and propagation activities, and thus also constituted an infringement of the “Jimai 22” variety rights. Therefore, Company B’s profits from the sales process should be considered when determining the damages for infringement. The seed production quantity agreed upon in the seed propagation agreement between Company B and a third party can be considered as the quantity of infringing seeds in this case, and the difference between the selling price of the infringing seeds and the minimum grain purchase price for that year should be appropriately increased to represent Company B’s reasonable profit. Based on the above calculations, Company B’s profits from the infringement have exceeded the 200,000 RMB claimed by Company A in its appeal; therefore, Company A’s claim for compensation is fully supported.

　　[Typical Significance]

　　This case is a typical example of the People’s Court implementing the full-chain protection of new plant varieties. By combining the planting rhythm and growth cycle of specific varieties and applying rules of experience, the case reasonably estimated the production and propagation time of the infringing seeds, reducing the burden of proof on the variety right holder. It also clarifies that even after the expiration of the variety right protection period, the producer of the infringing seeds still constitutes a variety right infringement by selling the infringing seeds produced without permission during the protection period, thus providing complete and sufficient judicial protection for breeding innovation achievements.

　　Case Number

　　Second Instance: 最高人民法院（2026）最高法知民终51号