China’s Supreme Court Typical Case Highlights Punitive Damages in Blueberry Variety Infringement Involving a Foreign Breeder
Published 22 October 2026
Yu Du
On 14 October 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) released five typical cases concerning the protection of plant variety rights (PVRs). One case, involving the blueberry variety “Plablue1542”, illustrates how foreign breeders can enforce their rights in China and how courts assess intentional infringement, serious circumstances and punitive damages.
The decision provides practical guidance on protecting proprietary plant varieties, establishing infringement through different forms of evidence and recovering damages from unauthorised commercial propagation.
Case Background and Court Decision
The Spanish company Plantas de Navarra, S.A. owns Chinese PVR No. 20210234 for the blueberry variety “Plablue1542”, granted on 25 June 2021. A Chinese agricultural company, acting as an authorised licensee, brought an infringement action against a blueberry nursery in Yuxi, Yunnan Province.
The nursery, established in July 2024, promoted and sold blueberry seedlings through social media. A notarised purchase and subsequent technical testing linked the seedlings to the protected variety. During the investigation, the nursery’s representative acknowledged obtaining propagation materials through unofficial channels and disclosed substantial production of several blueberry varieties.
The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court found intentional infringement and concluded that the nursery was primarily engaged in infringing activities. It awarded RMB 144,000 in damages, including punitive damages, plus RMB 10,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses.
The SPC dismissed the nursery’s appeal and upheld the judgment.
Legal Analysis
1. Enforcement Rights of Foreign Breeders and Local Licensees
Foreign breeders holding valid Chinese PVRs are entitled to seek legal protection in China. However, obtaining protection and enforcing it effectively are separate matters. A foreign breeder must consider who will take legal action, whether that party has standing and how the relevant rights and authorisations will be established.
In this case, the Spanish PVR owner authorised its Chinese licensee to bring infringement proceedings in its own name. This arrangement allowed a locally based entity to collect evidence and pursue enforcement without requiring the foreign owner to act directly as the claimant.
The case highlights the importance of clearly drafted licence agreements and enforcement authorisations. Foreign breeders should ensure that such documents specify the scope of licensed rights, authority to bring legal proceedings, and arrangements for recovering damages and enforcement costs.
A local licence alone should not be assumed to confer an unrestricted right to sue. The contractual terms, nature of the licence and applicable procedural requirements must be considered.
2. Proving Intentional Infringement
Punitive damages in PVR disputes require more than proof of unauthorised propagation or sales. The claimant must establish intentional infringement and serious circumstances.
In this case, the defendant's knowledge was supported by several factors. Its representative recognised the commercial identity of the protected variety, referred to it as “Spanish 42” and acknowledged obtaining propagation materials through unofficial channels. The nursery nevertheless continued production and sales without authorisation.
These facts supported the finding of intentional infringement. The court considered the defendant's actual knowledge and conduct rather than relying solely on whether the defendant had received a formal infringement warning.
For foreign breeders, this illustrates the value of collecting evidence of a defendant's knowledge, including sales communications, product descriptions, marketing materials and statements concerning the origin of propagation materials.
3. Identifying a Business Primarily Engaged in Infringement
A particularly important aspect of the decision concerns the meaning of conducting a business primarily engaged in infringement.
Although the defendant had operated for only a short period, the court examined the composition of its business activities. The defendant disclosed a batch of approximately 120,000 blueberry seedlings, including 20,000 seedlings of the disputed variety. Another variety accounted for approximately half of the batch, and the defendant failed to establish its lawful source.
Considering these circumstances, the first-instance court inferred that more than 67% of the nursery’s seedlings were produced without authorisation. The SPC agreed that the defendant's operations amounted to a business primarily engaged in infringement.
The significance is that a lengthy history of infringement is not always necessary. A newly established business may still meet this standard where the available evidence shows that unauthorised propagation forms the principal part of its operations.
The assessment is fact-specific. There is no universal numerical threshold under which a particular proportion of unauthorised products automatically establishes a business primarily engaged in infringement.
4. Establishing the Basis for Punitive Damages
An important distinction must be made between evidence used to establish serious infringement and evidence used to calculate monetary compensation.
In this case, the courts considered the nursery’s broader operations, including another unauthorised variety, when assessing whether the infringement was sufficiently serious to justify punitive damages. However, the calculation of damages for "Plablue1542" was based on the infringement relating to that protected variety.
The court used the defendant's own statement that the first batch included 20,000 seedlings of the disputed variety. Taking the blueberry propagation cycle into account, it estimated the relevant infringing quantity at 40,000 seedlings.
Using a selling price of RMB 9 per seedling and a profit margin of 20%, the court calculated the compensatory damages base at RMB 72,000. It then applied a punitive multiplier of one, resulting in total damages of RMB 144,000, excluding reasonable enforcement expenses.
This calculation illustrates how courts may use commercial statements, production cycles and reasonable profit assumptions to assess damages when complete accounting records are unavailable.
It also demonstrates that punitive damages are not calculated simply by multiplying the total number of potentially unauthorised products across a defendant's business. The compensatory base and the grounds for applying punitive damages must be established separately.
5. Building an Effective Evidence Strategy
For foreign breeders, obtaining evidence of infringement can be particularly challenging where unauthorised propagation occurs at nurseries or through informal distribution networks.
The claimant in this case combined a notarised purchase, technical variety testing, the defendant’s statements and social media promotional materials. Each type of evidence served a different purpose: identifying the protected variety, establishing unauthorised conduct, demonstrating knowledge and assessing the scale of production.
This approach suggests that evidence collection should not focus solely on purchasing a sample of suspected infringing seedlings. Where punitive damages may be sought, evidence of the defendant's wider business operations can be equally important.
Breeders and their licensees should consider preserving online advertisements, sales records, communications concerning propagation materials and information about nursery capacity. Evidence should be obtained through lawful and reliable procedures so that it can withstand examination in court.
Comment
The “Plablue1542” decision illustrates a practical approach to punitive damages in China’s PVR litigation. The SPC considered the defendant's overall business activities to determine the seriousness of infringement, while using evidence relating to the protected variety to calculate the damages base. This distinction provides useful guidance on how claimants can structure their evidence and damages claims, particularly where complete production and financial records are difficult to obtain.
For foreign breeders, effective enforcement in China depends not only on securing PVR registration but also on establishing clear local enforcement arrangements and maintaining an evidence strategy suited to commercial propagation activities. Well-drafted licence and enforcement provisions, timely market monitoring and careful preservation of technical and commercial evidence can significantly improve the prospects of protecting proprietary varieties and recovering compensation.
The decision provides practical guidance on protecting proprietary plant varieties, establishing infringement through different forms of evidence and recovering damages from unauthorised commercial propagation.
Case Background and Court Decision
The Spanish company Plantas de Navarra, S.A. owns Chinese PVR No. 20210234 for the blueberry variety “Plablue1542”, granted on 25 June 2021. A Chinese agricultural company, acting as an authorised licensee, brought an infringement action against a blueberry nursery in Yuxi, Yunnan Province.
The nursery, established in July 2024, promoted and sold blueberry seedlings through social media. A notarised purchase and subsequent technical testing linked the seedlings to the protected variety. During the investigation, the nursery’s representative acknowledged obtaining propagation materials through unofficial channels and disclosed substantial production of several blueberry varieties.
The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court found intentional infringement and concluded that the nursery was primarily engaged in infringing activities. It awarded RMB 144,000 in damages, including punitive damages, plus RMB 10,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses.
The SPC dismissed the nursery’s appeal and upheld the judgment.
Legal Analysis
1. Enforcement Rights of Foreign Breeders and Local Licensees
Foreign breeders holding valid Chinese PVRs are entitled to seek legal protection in China. However, obtaining protection and enforcing it effectively are separate matters. A foreign breeder must consider who will take legal action, whether that party has standing and how the relevant rights and authorisations will be established.
In this case, the Spanish PVR owner authorised its Chinese licensee to bring infringement proceedings in its own name. This arrangement allowed a locally based entity to collect evidence and pursue enforcement without requiring the foreign owner to act directly as the claimant.
The case highlights the importance of clearly drafted licence agreements and enforcement authorisations. Foreign breeders should ensure that such documents specify the scope of licensed rights, authority to bring legal proceedings, and arrangements for recovering damages and enforcement costs.
A local licence alone should not be assumed to confer an unrestricted right to sue. The contractual terms, nature of the licence and applicable procedural requirements must be considered.
2. Proving Intentional Infringement
Punitive damages in PVR disputes require more than proof of unauthorised propagation or sales. The claimant must establish intentional infringement and serious circumstances.
In this case, the defendant's knowledge was supported by several factors. Its representative recognised the commercial identity of the protected variety, referred to it as “Spanish 42” and acknowledged obtaining propagation materials through unofficial channels. The nursery nevertheless continued production and sales without authorisation.
These facts supported the finding of intentional infringement. The court considered the defendant's actual knowledge and conduct rather than relying solely on whether the defendant had received a formal infringement warning.
For foreign breeders, this illustrates the value of collecting evidence of a defendant's knowledge, including sales communications, product descriptions, marketing materials and statements concerning the origin of propagation materials.
3. Identifying a Business Primarily Engaged in Infringement
A particularly important aspect of the decision concerns the meaning of conducting a business primarily engaged in infringement.
Although the defendant had operated for only a short period, the court examined the composition of its business activities. The defendant disclosed a batch of approximately 120,000 blueberry seedlings, including 20,000 seedlings of the disputed variety. Another variety accounted for approximately half of the batch, and the defendant failed to establish its lawful source.
Considering these circumstances, the first-instance court inferred that more than 67% of the nursery’s seedlings were produced without authorisation. The SPC agreed that the defendant's operations amounted to a business primarily engaged in infringement.
The significance is that a lengthy history of infringement is not always necessary. A newly established business may still meet this standard where the available evidence shows that unauthorised propagation forms the principal part of its operations.
The assessment is fact-specific. There is no universal numerical threshold under which a particular proportion of unauthorised products automatically establishes a business primarily engaged in infringement.
4. Establishing the Basis for Punitive Damages
An important distinction must be made between evidence used to establish serious infringement and evidence used to calculate monetary compensation.
In this case, the courts considered the nursery’s broader operations, including another unauthorised variety, when assessing whether the infringement was sufficiently serious to justify punitive damages. However, the calculation of damages for "Plablue1542" was based on the infringement relating to that protected variety.
The court used the defendant's own statement that the first batch included 20,000 seedlings of the disputed variety. Taking the blueberry propagation cycle into account, it estimated the relevant infringing quantity at 40,000 seedlings.
Using a selling price of RMB 9 per seedling and a profit margin of 20%, the court calculated the compensatory damages base at RMB 72,000. It then applied a punitive multiplier of one, resulting in total damages of RMB 144,000, excluding reasonable enforcement expenses.
This calculation illustrates how courts may use commercial statements, production cycles and reasonable profit assumptions to assess damages when complete accounting records are unavailable.
It also demonstrates that punitive damages are not calculated simply by multiplying the total number of potentially unauthorised products across a defendant's business. The compensatory base and the grounds for applying punitive damages must be established separately.
5. Building an Effective Evidence Strategy
For foreign breeders, obtaining evidence of infringement can be particularly challenging where unauthorised propagation occurs at nurseries or through informal distribution networks.
The claimant in this case combined a notarised purchase, technical variety testing, the defendant’s statements and social media promotional materials. Each type of evidence served a different purpose: identifying the protected variety, establishing unauthorised conduct, demonstrating knowledge and assessing the scale of production.
This approach suggests that evidence collection should not focus solely on purchasing a sample of suspected infringing seedlings. Where punitive damages may be sought, evidence of the defendant's wider business operations can be equally important.
Breeders and their licensees should consider preserving online advertisements, sales records, communications concerning propagation materials and information about nursery capacity. Evidence should be obtained through lawful and reliable procedures so that it can withstand examination in court.
Comment
The “Plablue1542” decision illustrates a practical approach to punitive damages in China’s PVR litigation. The SPC considered the defendant's overall business activities to determine the seriousness of infringement, while using evidence relating to the protected variety to calculate the damages base. This distinction provides useful guidance on how claimants can structure their evidence and damages claims, particularly where complete production and financial records are difficult to obtain.
For foreign breeders, effective enforcement in China depends not only on securing PVR registration but also on establishing clear local enforcement arrangements and maintaining an evidence strategy suited to commercial propagation activities. Well-drafted licence and enforcement provisions, timely market monitoring and careful preservation of technical and commercial evidence can significantly improve the prospects of protecting proprietary varieties and recovering compensation.