China’s Supreme Court’s Intellectual Property Court Clarifies Key Rules on Technical Fact-Finding in Plant Variety Rights Cases
Published 12 October 2026
Yu Du
On 10 October 2026, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) published an interpretative article entitled Understanding and Application of the Guidelines on Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of Plant Variety Right (PVR) Cases (the “Interpretation”), authored by Luo Xia, a judge of the SPC Intellectual Property Court, and Chen Ke. The Interpretation was originally published in Issue No. 19 of People’s Judicature, an official judicial journal of the SPC.
The Interpretation provides insights into the drafting background and process, underlying principles, and key considerations for applying the Guidelines on Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of PVR Cases (the “Guidelines”), issued by the SPC in April 2026.
Background and Rationale
Before the Guidelines were issued, technical fact-finding in PVR disputes was governed by existing laws, judicial interpretations and technical standards. However, the relevant rules were fragmented and lacked a systematic, PVR-specific framework for judicial application. In practice, courts faced challenges including inconsistent sampling procedures and testing standards, uncertainty over the distinction between privately commissioned tests and court-appointed appraisals, and differing approaches to assessing technical evidence.
Against this background, the SPC conducted a dedicated study in 2024 and developed the Guidelines to address these practical difficulties. As the first judicial guidance document specifically dedicated to technical fact-finding in PVR cases, the Guidelines consolidate existing rules and judicial experience, clarify evidentiary standards and provide more consistent and practical procedures for courts handling such disputes.
Comprising 40 provisions across eight chapters, the Guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for determining technical facts in civil and administrative disputes involving PVRs. The Interpretation provides further clarification of the following key provisions.
1. Initiation of Technical Appraisals (Articles 5–9 and 23)
Courts should commission technical appraisals only when necessary to establish disputed technical facts. Applications may be rejected where existing evidence is sufficient. Supplementary or repeated appraisals require justified grounds. However, where expert opinions were not accepted at first instance, a PVR holder’s request for a court-commissioned appraisal on appeal should be granted if the necessary conditions are met.
2. Sample Collection and Reference Materials (Articles 7, 8 and 11)
Testing samples must be authentic, traceable and properly preserved. Notarization is encouraged but not mandatory, and alternative evidence-preservation methods may be accepted. Official reference samples of protected varieties take priority. Where unavailable, rights holders may provide their own propagating materials or DNA fingerprints, subject to verification of authenticity.
3. Field-Growing Tests and DNA Testing (Articles 10 and 22)
Both field-growing tests and DNA molecular marker testing may be used to determine varietal identity, without a mandatory order of application. While DNA testing offers greater efficiency, field-growing test results prevail where the two methods produce conflicting conclusions, reflecting the basis on which plant variety rights are granted.
4. Testing Methods and Additional Genetic Markers (Articles 10 and 15–19)
Testing should prioritize methods and genetic markers prescribed by applicable national or industry standards. Scientifically reliable alternative methods may be accepted where no applicable standard exists. Additional markers may be tested under strict scientific conditions. Where the number of differing markers is below but close to the applicable threshold, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proving that the disputed material differs from the protected variety.
5. Determination of Parental Relationships (Articles 20–21)
Where testing indicates a suspected parental relationship between an allegedly infringing variety and a protected variety, courts may preliminarily find infringement. In inconclusive cases, breeding records and other evidence may be considered, while unsupported denials by alleged infringers may be insufficient to rebut infringement allegations. Conversely, testing that excludes a parent–offspring relationship may support a preliminary finding of non-infringement.
6. Judicial Review of Expert Opinions (Articles 24–28)
Courts must independently assess the reliability of expert opinions, including sample authenticity, institutional qualifications, testing methods and procedural compliance, even where no objections are raised. Expert opinions may also be submitted on appeal. Experts may be required to appear for questioning, and unjustified refusal may render their opinions inadmissible and associated costs unrecoverable.
7. Multiple Mechanisms for Technical Fact-Finding (Articles 29–37)
In addition to formal appraisals and expert opinions, courts may use expert assistants, technical investigation officers, technically qualified people's assessors and expert consultations to resolve complex scientific issues. These mechanisms assist judicial understanding without replacing the court's responsibility for determining the facts.
8. Appraisal Time Limits and Accountability (Articles 38–40)
Appraisal institutions must generally submit an appraisal plan and related documents within five working days of accepting an appointment. DNA molecular marker appraisals should ordinarily be completed within 30 working days, or 60 working days for complex cases, with extensions generally limited to 30 working days. Misconduct may result in termination of appointments, refund obligations or other legal consequences.
Comment
The Guidelines and the Interpretation address longstanding procedural and evidentiary challenges in PVR litigation by consolidating previously fragmented rules and clarifying technical fact-finding standards. Their guidance on genetic testing, burden of proof and parental relationships is expected to promote greater consistency and predictability in judicial decisions, while helping PVR holders address evidentiary challenges in infringement disputes.
For breeders and PVR holders, these developments also underscore the importance of reliable reference materials, proper sample preservation and complete breeding records. By providing a more systematic and practical framework for technical fact-finding, the Guidelines represent a significant step towards more effective judicial framework for protecting plant breeding innovation in China.
The Interpretation provides insights into the drafting background and process, underlying principles, and key considerations for applying the Guidelines on Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of PVR Cases (the “Guidelines”), issued by the SPC in April 2026.
Background and Rationale
Before the Guidelines were issued, technical fact-finding in PVR disputes was governed by existing laws, judicial interpretations and technical standards. However, the relevant rules were fragmented and lacked a systematic, PVR-specific framework for judicial application. In practice, courts faced challenges including inconsistent sampling procedures and testing standards, uncertainty over the distinction between privately commissioned tests and court-appointed appraisals, and differing approaches to assessing technical evidence.
Against this background, the SPC conducted a dedicated study in 2024 and developed the Guidelines to address these practical difficulties. As the first judicial guidance document specifically dedicated to technical fact-finding in PVR cases, the Guidelines consolidate existing rules and judicial experience, clarify evidentiary standards and provide more consistent and practical procedures for courts handling such disputes.
Comprising 40 provisions across eight chapters, the Guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for determining technical facts in civil and administrative disputes involving PVRs. The Interpretation provides further clarification of the following key provisions.
1. Initiation of Technical Appraisals (Articles 5–9 and 23)
Courts should commission technical appraisals only when necessary to establish disputed technical facts. Applications may be rejected where existing evidence is sufficient. Supplementary or repeated appraisals require justified grounds. However, where expert opinions were not accepted at first instance, a PVR holder’s request for a court-commissioned appraisal on appeal should be granted if the necessary conditions are met.
2. Sample Collection and Reference Materials (Articles 7, 8 and 11)
Testing samples must be authentic, traceable and properly preserved. Notarization is encouraged but not mandatory, and alternative evidence-preservation methods may be accepted. Official reference samples of protected varieties take priority. Where unavailable, rights holders may provide their own propagating materials or DNA fingerprints, subject to verification of authenticity.
3. Field-Growing Tests and DNA Testing (Articles 10 and 22)
Both field-growing tests and DNA molecular marker testing may be used to determine varietal identity, without a mandatory order of application. While DNA testing offers greater efficiency, field-growing test results prevail where the two methods produce conflicting conclusions, reflecting the basis on which plant variety rights are granted.
4. Testing Methods and Additional Genetic Markers (Articles 10 and 15–19)
Testing should prioritize methods and genetic markers prescribed by applicable national or industry standards. Scientifically reliable alternative methods may be accepted where no applicable standard exists. Additional markers may be tested under strict scientific conditions. Where the number of differing markers is below but close to the applicable threshold, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proving that the disputed material differs from the protected variety.
5. Determination of Parental Relationships (Articles 20–21)
Where testing indicates a suspected parental relationship between an allegedly infringing variety and a protected variety, courts may preliminarily find infringement. In inconclusive cases, breeding records and other evidence may be considered, while unsupported denials by alleged infringers may be insufficient to rebut infringement allegations. Conversely, testing that excludes a parent–offspring relationship may support a preliminary finding of non-infringement.
6. Judicial Review of Expert Opinions (Articles 24–28)
Courts must independently assess the reliability of expert opinions, including sample authenticity, institutional qualifications, testing methods and procedural compliance, even where no objections are raised. Expert opinions may also be submitted on appeal. Experts may be required to appear for questioning, and unjustified refusal may render their opinions inadmissible and associated costs unrecoverable.
7. Multiple Mechanisms for Technical Fact-Finding (Articles 29–37)
In addition to formal appraisals and expert opinions, courts may use expert assistants, technical investigation officers, technically qualified people's assessors and expert consultations to resolve complex scientific issues. These mechanisms assist judicial understanding without replacing the court's responsibility for determining the facts.
8. Appraisal Time Limits and Accountability (Articles 38–40)
Appraisal institutions must generally submit an appraisal plan and related documents within five working days of accepting an appointment. DNA molecular marker appraisals should ordinarily be completed within 30 working days, or 60 working days for complex cases, with extensions generally limited to 30 working days. Misconduct may result in termination of appointments, refund obligations or other legal consequences.
Comment
The Guidelines and the Interpretation address longstanding procedural and evidentiary challenges in PVR litigation by consolidating previously fragmented rules and clarifying technical fact-finding standards. Their guidance on genetic testing, burden of proof and parental relationships is expected to promote greater consistency and predictability in judicial decisions, while helping PVR holders address evidentiary challenges in infringement disputes.
For breeders and PVR holders, these developments also underscore the importance of reliable reference materials, proper sample preservation and complete breeding records. By providing a more systematic and practical framework for technical fact-finding, the Guidelines represent a significant step towards more effective judicial framework for protecting plant breeding innovation in China.