Beijing IP Court Affirms Protection of Plant Variety Rights via “Harvested Materials” under Revised Seed Law
Published 22 July 2025
Yu Du
On 21 July 2025, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court publicly released a landmark ruling recently rendered under the revised PRC Seed Law (2021 Amendment), recognizing that plant variety rights can be enforced through the sale of “harvested materials”. This decision clarifies the legal conditions for applying such protection and provides detailed interpretation on the legal characterization of root crops with both reproductive and consumable properties.
Case History
The plaintiff, a seed company based in Shandong, holds the plant variety rights (PVR) for the sweet potato variety “Taizishu No. 1”. The plaintiff discovered that an agricultural company in Beijing had been selling edible root tubers of “Taizishu No. 1” through a store on a short video platform, without the plaintiff’s authorization. The plaintiff sued for infringement, seeking cessation of the unauthorized sales and compensation for losses.
During the proceedings, the Beijing agricultural company claimed that the sweet potato tubers were legally sourced from a commercial trading company in Mengyin County, and thus it was protected by the “lawful source” defense. The court added the Mengyin company as a co-defendant. Both defendants jointly argued that the tubers in question constituted “harvested materials”, not “propagating materials”, and thus were outside the scope of PVR protection.
Court Findings
1. Legal Nature of the Tubers
The court found that the sweet potato tubers, being roots of the plant, could be used as food and therefore possess the attributes of harvested materials. However, due to their biological capacity for propagation, they also have characteristics of propagating materials. To determine their legal status, the court adopted a “functional purpose-oriented” approach, assessing both the seller’s intention and the actual use by consumers.
Evidence showed that the defendant promoted the taste and cooking methods of the sweet potatoes in its marketing, with no reference to planting or cultivation. Consumer feedback also focused solely on consumption experience. Based on this, the court ruled that the tubers sold in this case should be categorized as harvested materials.
2. Protection of PVR through Harvested Materials
Article 28, paragraph 3 of the 2021 Seed Law allows PVR holders to assert rights against unauthorized use of harvested materials, but only if:
i) The harvested material originates from unauthorized propagating material; ii) There has been commercial use of the harvested material without authorization;iii) The PVR holder lacked a reasonable opportunity to enforce rights against the user of the propagating material.
The court found that the plaintiff had taken appropriate steps to investigate the source of the propagating material, including notarized purchases and requesting clarification from involved parties. However, it was impossible to identify the entity that used the original propagating materials. Therefore, the court concluded that the PVR holder lacked a reasonable opportunity to pursue the propagator and was entitled to assert claims against the sellers of the harvested material.
3. Lawful Source Defense
The Beijing agricultural company presented a complete chain of evidence - purchase contracts, payment records, and invoices - showing it had lawfully acquired the tubers. As a result, while its sales constituted infringement, it was not liable for economic damages but was ordered to cease infringement and pay reasonable legal expenses.
In contrast, the Mengyin company failed to prove a lawful source. The invoice from its upstream supplier referenced a generic sweet potato variety, not “Taizishu No. 1”. Therefore, the lawful source defense was rejected for the Mengyin company, which was held liable for both ceasing infringement and compensating the plaintiff’s economic losses.
Court Judgment The court ordered both defendants to immediately stop infringing activities and jointly pay RMB 10,000 for legal costs. Additionally, the Mengyin company was ordered to pay RMB 80,000 in damages. No appeals were filed, and the judgment has become effective.
Comment
This case represents the first application by the Beijing IP Court of the revised Seed Law provisions allowing enforcement of PVR through harvested materials, and identified three core conditions for such enforcement. The court further refined the concept of a “reasonable opportunity” by considering factors such as the difficulty of tracing the propagator, cost-benefit of enforcement, and the feasibility of evidence preservation.
In characterizing the legal nature of root crops with dual uses, the court emphasized the “functional purpose” test, weighing the seller’s marketing intent and consumer behavior. This pragmatic standard avoids overextending protection while maintaining the integrity of PVR enforcement. Lastly, the ruling underscores the importance of a well-documented supply chain in asserting the lawful source defense, promoting both legal compliance and a sound business environment.
Case History
The plaintiff, a seed company based in Shandong, holds the plant variety rights (PVR) for the sweet potato variety “Taizishu No. 1”. The plaintiff discovered that an agricultural company in Beijing had been selling edible root tubers of “Taizishu No. 1” through a store on a short video platform, without the plaintiff’s authorization. The plaintiff sued for infringement, seeking cessation of the unauthorized sales and compensation for losses.
During the proceedings, the Beijing agricultural company claimed that the sweet potato tubers were legally sourced from a commercial trading company in Mengyin County, and thus it was protected by the “lawful source” defense. The court added the Mengyin company as a co-defendant. Both defendants jointly argued that the tubers in question constituted “harvested materials”, not “propagating materials”, and thus were outside the scope of PVR protection.
Court Findings
1. Legal Nature of the Tubers
The court found that the sweet potato tubers, being roots of the plant, could be used as food and therefore possess the attributes of harvested materials. However, due to their biological capacity for propagation, they also have characteristics of propagating materials. To determine their legal status, the court adopted a “functional purpose-oriented” approach, assessing both the seller’s intention and the actual use by consumers.
Evidence showed that the defendant promoted the taste and cooking methods of the sweet potatoes in its marketing, with no reference to planting or cultivation. Consumer feedback also focused solely on consumption experience. Based on this, the court ruled that the tubers sold in this case should be categorized as harvested materials.
2. Protection of PVR through Harvested Materials
Article 28, paragraph 3 of the 2021 Seed Law allows PVR holders to assert rights against unauthorized use of harvested materials, but only if:
i) The harvested material originates from unauthorized propagating material; ii) There has been commercial use of the harvested material without authorization;iii) The PVR holder lacked a reasonable opportunity to enforce rights against the user of the propagating material.
The court found that the plaintiff had taken appropriate steps to investigate the source of the propagating material, including notarized purchases and requesting clarification from involved parties. However, it was impossible to identify the entity that used the original propagating materials. Therefore, the court concluded that the PVR holder lacked a reasonable opportunity to pursue the propagator and was entitled to assert claims against the sellers of the harvested material.
3. Lawful Source Defense
The Beijing agricultural company presented a complete chain of evidence - purchase contracts, payment records, and invoices - showing it had lawfully acquired the tubers. As a result, while its sales constituted infringement, it was not liable for economic damages but was ordered to cease infringement and pay reasonable legal expenses.
In contrast, the Mengyin company failed to prove a lawful source. The invoice from its upstream supplier referenced a generic sweet potato variety, not “Taizishu No. 1”. Therefore, the lawful source defense was rejected for the Mengyin company, which was held liable for both ceasing infringement and compensating the plaintiff’s economic losses.
Court Judgment The court ordered both defendants to immediately stop infringing activities and jointly pay RMB 10,000 for legal costs. Additionally, the Mengyin company was ordered to pay RMB 80,000 in damages. No appeals were filed, and the judgment has become effective.
Comment
This case represents the first application by the Beijing IP Court of the revised Seed Law provisions allowing enforcement of PVR through harvested materials, and identified three core conditions for such enforcement. The court further refined the concept of a “reasonable opportunity” by considering factors such as the difficulty of tracing the propagator, cost-benefit of enforcement, and the feasibility of evidence preservation.
In characterizing the legal nature of root crops with dual uses, the court emphasized the “functional purpose” test, weighing the seller’s marketing intent and consumer behavior. This pragmatic standard avoids overextending protection while maintaining the integrity of PVR enforcement. Lastly, the ruling underscores the importance of a well-documented supply chain in asserting the lawful source defense, promoting both legal compliance and a sound business environment.