China: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Releases the 2025 Top Ten Typical Cases on the Protection and Enforcement of Agricultural Plant Variety Rights
Published 17 December 2025
Yu Du
On 16 December 2025, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MOA) released the Top Ten Typical Cases on the Protection and Enforcement of Agricultural Plant New Variety Rights for 2025. The release was made in the context of implementing the national strategy for revitalizing the seed industry and strengthening enforcement of the PRC Seed Law. By publishing these representative cases selected from recent administrative enforcement, reexamination proceedings, and judicial adjudications, the MOA aims to enhance legal awareness, deter infringement, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of plant variety right holders, and encourage sustained original innovation in the agricultural seed sector.
Case 1 - Administrative Enforcement on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “THD28”
This case arose from a complaint filed by a variety right holder against a seed company that had produced maize seeds using the protected inbred line “THD28” without authorization. Investigations revealed large-scale unauthorized seed production and subsequent commercialization, involving substantial acreage and high market value. Given the malicious nature of the infringement, including continued production during the investigation period, the local agricultural authority imposed a ninefold fine based on the value of the infringing seeds, confiscated illegal gains, and seized the infringing products. The penalty was upheld by the court and enforced through compulsory execution, demonstrating the strong deterrent effect of high-multiple administrative penalties against serious infringement.
Case 2 - Administrative Enforcement on the Infringement of the Rice Variety “19 Xiang”
This case involved the unauthorized production and sale of the protected rice variety “19 Xiang” under a different commercial name, constituting a typical passing-off infringement. After infringement was confirmed through testing, the infringing party actively cooperated with the investigation, reached a settlement with the variety right holder, and compensated the losses. As the infringing seeds caused no actual harm to farmers, the enforcement authority applied discretionary leniency and imposed a mitigated penalty in accordance with the Administrative Penalty Law.
Case 3 - Administrative Enforcement on the Infringement of the Rice Variety “Nanjing 9108”
In this case, large-scale grain growers and family farms retained seeds from legitimately purchased “Nanjing 9108” rice cultivated on transferred land for further reproduction without authorization. The authority clarified that the statutory exception for farmers’ self-propagation and self-use does not apply to such operators or to land obtained through transfer arrangements. Confiscation and fines were imposed, reinforcing the legal boundary between lawful self-use and infringement.
Case 4 - Administrative Enforcement on Counterfeit Authorized Seeds of the Rice Variety “Yexiangyou 9901”
This case concerned the sale of rice seeds falsely labeled with another variety’s plant variety right number, constituting counterfeit authorized seeds. Through cross-regional enforcement cooperation, authorities traced the source of the infringing seeds and imposed penalties on both downstream sellers and upstream producers, demonstrating the effectiveness of coordinated traceability enforcement.
Case 5 - Judicial Adjudication on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “Lihe 228”
This judicial dispute clarified that courts may not apply punitive damages ex officio in plant variety right infringement cases. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held that punitive damages must be expressly claimed by the right holder before the conclusion of first-instance court debates and clarified the standards for identifying repeated infringement.
Case 6 - Judicial Adjudication on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “Wannuo 2000”
This case involved unauthorized seed production on contracted land, where the land contractor failed to exercise due diligence. The SPC significantly increased the compensation amount based on actual production scale and profits and held the land contractor jointly liable, emphasizing front-end compliance obligations.
Case 7 - Judicial Adjudication on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “Duoyou 26”
In this case, courts relied on production and sales data filed with seed administration authorities to calculate damages. The SPC affirmed the evidentiary value of administrative records, easing the burden of proof for variety right holders.
Case 8 - Reexamination Decision on the Invalidation Request of the Maize Variety “ZN3”
The reexamination authority rejected the invalidation request, holding that a variety protected only as a trade secret does not constitute a “known variety” under the Seed Law and that ownership disputes fall outside the scope of reexamination proceedings.
Case 9 - Reexamination Decision on the Invalidation Request of the Maize Variety “WH818”
This case clarified that the sale of a hybrid variety does not automatically cause its parent line to lose novelty. The novelty of a parent variety must be assessed independently based on its own commercialization history.
Case 10 - Reexamination Decision on the Rejection of the Wheat Variety “Hefeng No. 3”
The reexamination authority held that test reports based on samples provided unilaterally by the applicant lack sufficient reliability. Official test results based on standard samples were deemed decisive for determining distinctness and authorization eligibility.
Comment
The publication of these ten typical cases reflects China’s increasingly systematic and robust approach to the protection of agricultural plant new varieties. Through a combination of strict administrative enforcement, clarified judicial rules, and standardized authorization review, these cases provide clear and operable guidance on key issues such as punitive damages, joint infringement liability, evidentiary standards, novelty and distinctness assessment, and the limits of farmers’ self-use. More broadly, they send a strong signal that infringement will be met with substantial legal consequences and that lawful innovation will receive effective protection, thereby fostering a fair, transparent, and innovation-driven environment for the sustainable development of China’s seed industry.
Case 1 - Administrative Enforcement on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “THD28”
This case arose from a complaint filed by a variety right holder against a seed company that had produced maize seeds using the protected inbred line “THD28” without authorization. Investigations revealed large-scale unauthorized seed production and subsequent commercialization, involving substantial acreage and high market value. Given the malicious nature of the infringement, including continued production during the investigation period, the local agricultural authority imposed a ninefold fine based on the value of the infringing seeds, confiscated illegal gains, and seized the infringing products. The penalty was upheld by the court and enforced through compulsory execution, demonstrating the strong deterrent effect of high-multiple administrative penalties against serious infringement.
Case 2 - Administrative Enforcement on the Infringement of the Rice Variety “19 Xiang”
This case involved the unauthorized production and sale of the protected rice variety “19 Xiang” under a different commercial name, constituting a typical passing-off infringement. After infringement was confirmed through testing, the infringing party actively cooperated with the investigation, reached a settlement with the variety right holder, and compensated the losses. As the infringing seeds caused no actual harm to farmers, the enforcement authority applied discretionary leniency and imposed a mitigated penalty in accordance with the Administrative Penalty Law.
Case 3 - Administrative Enforcement on the Infringement of the Rice Variety “Nanjing 9108”
In this case, large-scale grain growers and family farms retained seeds from legitimately purchased “Nanjing 9108” rice cultivated on transferred land for further reproduction without authorization. The authority clarified that the statutory exception for farmers’ self-propagation and self-use does not apply to such operators or to land obtained through transfer arrangements. Confiscation and fines were imposed, reinforcing the legal boundary between lawful self-use and infringement.
Case 4 - Administrative Enforcement on Counterfeit Authorized Seeds of the Rice Variety “Yexiangyou 9901”
This case concerned the sale of rice seeds falsely labeled with another variety’s plant variety right number, constituting counterfeit authorized seeds. Through cross-regional enforcement cooperation, authorities traced the source of the infringing seeds and imposed penalties on both downstream sellers and upstream producers, demonstrating the effectiveness of coordinated traceability enforcement.
Case 5 - Judicial Adjudication on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “Lihe 228”
This judicial dispute clarified that courts may not apply punitive damages ex officio in plant variety right infringement cases. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held that punitive damages must be expressly claimed by the right holder before the conclusion of first-instance court debates and clarified the standards for identifying repeated infringement.
Case 6 - Judicial Adjudication on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “Wannuo 2000”
This case involved unauthorized seed production on contracted land, where the land contractor failed to exercise due diligence. The SPC significantly increased the compensation amount based on actual production scale and profits and held the land contractor jointly liable, emphasizing front-end compliance obligations.
Case 7 - Judicial Adjudication on the Infringement of the Maize Variety “Duoyou 26”
In this case, courts relied on production and sales data filed with seed administration authorities to calculate damages. The SPC affirmed the evidentiary value of administrative records, easing the burden of proof for variety right holders.
Case 8 - Reexamination Decision on the Invalidation Request of the Maize Variety “ZN3”
The reexamination authority rejected the invalidation request, holding that a variety protected only as a trade secret does not constitute a “known variety” under the Seed Law and that ownership disputes fall outside the scope of reexamination proceedings.
Case 9 - Reexamination Decision on the Invalidation Request of the Maize Variety “WH818”
This case clarified that the sale of a hybrid variety does not automatically cause its parent line to lose novelty. The novelty of a parent variety must be assessed independently based on its own commercialization history.
Case 10 - Reexamination Decision on the Rejection of the Wheat Variety “Hefeng No. 3”
The reexamination authority held that test reports based on samples provided unilaterally by the applicant lack sufficient reliability. Official test results based on standard samples were deemed decisive for determining distinctness and authorization eligibility.
Comment
The publication of these ten typical cases reflects China’s increasingly systematic and robust approach to the protection of agricultural plant new varieties. Through a combination of strict administrative enforcement, clarified judicial rules, and standardized authorization review, these cases provide clear and operable guidance on key issues such as punitive damages, joint infringement liability, evidentiary standards, novelty and distinctness assessment, and the limits of farmers’ self-use. More broadly, they send a strong signal that infringement will be met with substantial legal consequences and that lawful innovation will receive effective protection, thereby fostering a fair, transparent, and innovation-driven environment for the sustainable development of China’s seed industry.