China’s SPC Releases Representative PVR Case Clarifying Liability of Land Contractors and Injunctive Relief
Published 5 June 2026
Yu Du
On 28 May 2026, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) released a representative case concerning infringement of plant variety rights. The case addresses two important issues frequently arising in seed production disputes: the determination of liability of land contracting operators who claim to have transferred operational control to others, and the proper handling of claims seeking cessation of infringement.
Case History
The dispute arose from the unauthorized production of maize seeds allegedly propagating the protected variety “Wannuo 2000” (PVR Application No. 20120515.0; Publication No.: CNA005948G).
The plaintiff, Hebei Huasui Seed Co., Ltd. holding the plant variety rights to Wannuo 2000, discovered that certain agricultural land parcels were being used for seed production activities suspected of involving the protected variety. Subsequent testing confirmed that the reproductive materials collected from the fields were genetically similar to the protected variety and constituted infringing propagating material.
The plaintiff filed suit against several defendants, including Zhao and Wang, who cultivated the disputed fields, and Wang Gui, the contracted operator of the disputed land, alleging that they had jointly engaged in the unauthorized production of infringing seeds. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and compensation for economic losses.
At first instance, the court held that Wang Gui and Zhao had jointly committed infringement. However, it found insufficient evidence to establish that Wang had participated in the infringing seed production activities and therefore declined to impose liability on him. The court also found no basis for imposing liability on the village committee.
The first-instance court further declined to grant the plaintiff’s request for cessation of infringement, reasoning that the maize crop had already been harvested and converted into silage (i.e., chopped and fermented green fodder commonly used as livestock feed). The court awarded RMB 600,000 in damages and reasonable enforcement expenses.
Both sides appealed.
Issue One: Liability of Land Contractors Who Claim to Have Transferred Operational Control
A key issue before the SPC was whether Wang Gui could avoid liability by asserting that he had transferred the contracted land to Zhao and was therefore not involved in the infringing seed production activities.
The SPC rejected this argument. The Court emphasized that Wang Gui remained the contracted operator of the land and continued to exercise substantial control over the seed production process. He personally handled the regulatory filings and genetically modified organism testing procedures required for seed production and failed to produce credible evidence proving the existence of the alleged transfer arrangement. No transfer agreement, payment records, or other corroborating evidence were provided.
The SPC further noted that Wang Gui delayed cooperation with administrative investigations until after the maize had been harvested and the fields ploughed, resulting in the loss of critical evidence concerning the quantity and destination of the infringing seeds.
Based on the totality of the evidence, the SPC concluded that Wang Gui directly participated in the infringing activities and should bear joint and several liability together with Zhao.
The judgment confirms that “land contractors are under an obligation to ensure that their contracted land is used for lawful and compliant operations. Even after transferring the land to another party, they must exercise due diligence in reviewing the transferee’s use of seed-production registrations and other regulatory approvals issued in the contractor’s name.”
Issue Two: Scope of Injunctive Relief in PVR Cases
A second important issue concerned whether injunctive relief remained necessary after the maize crop had already been harvested and allegedly converted into silage.
The first-instance court denied the plaintiff’s request for cessation of infringement on this basis. The SPC disagreed and adopted a broader understanding of injunctive relief in plant variety rights cases.
The SPC stated that the core of the right holder’s claim for cessation of infringement “lies in requiring the infringers to stop the ongoing infringing activities and to refrain from future infringing conduct, rather than being confined to infringement occurring on a particular parcel of land.”
The SPC further held:
“To fundamentally eliminate the risk of infringement, courts should, as a matter of principle, support a plant variety right holder’s claim for cessation of infringement.”
The SPC emphasized that the purpose of an injunction is not limited to terminating a specific infringing act at a particular time and place. Rather, it serves to eliminate continuing and future infringement risks. Accordingly, the SPC ordered the defendants to immediately cease infringing the protected variety rights.
Damages Award
Taking into account the scale of the infringing seed production, available evidence regarding seed yield and profits, and the defendants’ obstructive conduct during the investigation, the SPC increased the damages award from RMB 600,000 to RMB 2 million and additionally awarded RMB 16,985 in reasonable enforcement expenses.
Comment
This decision provides important guidance on two recurring issues in plant variety rights litigation.
First, it clarifies that land contractors cannot avoid liability merely by asserting that operational activities were carried out by another party where they continue to control key aspects of seed production or fail to exercise reasonable diligence. Second, the judgment strengthens judicial support for injunctive relief by confirming that cessation orders are intended not only to stop specific infringing acts, but also to prevent future infringement risks.
Together, these principles reinforce the SPC’s broader commitment to full-chain protection of the seed industry and stronger enforcement of breeders’ rights in China.
Case History
The dispute arose from the unauthorized production of maize seeds allegedly propagating the protected variety “Wannuo 2000” (PVR Application No. 20120515.0; Publication No.: CNA005948G).
The plaintiff, Hebei Huasui Seed Co., Ltd. holding the plant variety rights to Wannuo 2000, discovered that certain agricultural land parcels were being used for seed production activities suspected of involving the protected variety. Subsequent testing confirmed that the reproductive materials collected from the fields were genetically similar to the protected variety and constituted infringing propagating material.
The plaintiff filed suit against several defendants, including Zhao and Wang, who cultivated the disputed fields, and Wang Gui, the contracted operator of the disputed land, alleging that they had jointly engaged in the unauthorized production of infringing seeds. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and compensation for economic losses.
At first instance, the court held that Wang Gui and Zhao had jointly committed infringement. However, it found insufficient evidence to establish that Wang had participated in the infringing seed production activities and therefore declined to impose liability on him. The court also found no basis for imposing liability on the village committee.
The first-instance court further declined to grant the plaintiff’s request for cessation of infringement, reasoning that the maize crop had already been harvested and converted into silage (i.e., chopped and fermented green fodder commonly used as livestock feed). The court awarded RMB 600,000 in damages and reasonable enforcement expenses.
Both sides appealed.
Issue One: Liability of Land Contractors Who Claim to Have Transferred Operational Control
A key issue before the SPC was whether Wang Gui could avoid liability by asserting that he had transferred the contracted land to Zhao and was therefore not involved in the infringing seed production activities.
The SPC rejected this argument. The Court emphasized that Wang Gui remained the contracted operator of the land and continued to exercise substantial control over the seed production process. He personally handled the regulatory filings and genetically modified organism testing procedures required for seed production and failed to produce credible evidence proving the existence of the alleged transfer arrangement. No transfer agreement, payment records, or other corroborating evidence were provided.
The SPC further noted that Wang Gui delayed cooperation with administrative investigations until after the maize had been harvested and the fields ploughed, resulting in the loss of critical evidence concerning the quantity and destination of the infringing seeds.
Based on the totality of the evidence, the SPC concluded that Wang Gui directly participated in the infringing activities and should bear joint and several liability together with Zhao.
The judgment confirms that “land contractors are under an obligation to ensure that their contracted land is used for lawful and compliant operations. Even after transferring the land to another party, they must exercise due diligence in reviewing the transferee’s use of seed-production registrations and other regulatory approvals issued in the contractor’s name.”
Issue Two: Scope of Injunctive Relief in PVR Cases
A second important issue concerned whether injunctive relief remained necessary after the maize crop had already been harvested and allegedly converted into silage.
The first-instance court denied the plaintiff’s request for cessation of infringement on this basis. The SPC disagreed and adopted a broader understanding of injunctive relief in plant variety rights cases.
The SPC stated that the core of the right holder’s claim for cessation of infringement “lies in requiring the infringers to stop the ongoing infringing activities and to refrain from future infringing conduct, rather than being confined to infringement occurring on a particular parcel of land.”
The SPC further held:
“To fundamentally eliminate the risk of infringement, courts should, as a matter of principle, support a plant variety right holder’s claim for cessation of infringement.”
The SPC emphasized that the purpose of an injunction is not limited to terminating a specific infringing act at a particular time and place. Rather, it serves to eliminate continuing and future infringement risks. Accordingly, the SPC ordered the defendants to immediately cease infringing the protected variety rights.
Damages Award
Taking into account the scale of the infringing seed production, available evidence regarding seed yield and profits, and the defendants’ obstructive conduct during the investigation, the SPC increased the damages award from RMB 600,000 to RMB 2 million and additionally awarded RMB 16,985 in reasonable enforcement expenses.
Comment
This decision provides important guidance on two recurring issues in plant variety rights litigation.
First, it clarifies that land contractors cannot avoid liability merely by asserting that operational activities were carried out by another party where they continue to control key aspects of seed production or fail to exercise reasonable diligence. Second, the judgment strengthens judicial support for injunctive relief by confirming that cessation orders are intended not only to stop specific infringing acts, but also to prevent future infringement risks.
Together, these principles reinforce the SPC’s broader commitment to full-chain protection of the seed industry and stronger enforcement of breeders’ rights in China.