On 26 April 2024, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court publicly heard the appeal case concerning plant variety rights infringement. The appellant, Hengji Limagrain Seed Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hengji), is seeking compensation of RMB 160 million (USD 22 million) from the respondent, Henan Jinyuan Seed Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinyuan).
[Case Background]
Hengji holds rights to the new maize variety “NP01154” (PVR Registration Number: CNA20150107.1; Date of PVR Registration/Grant: 2 January 2018; Validity period from 2 January 2018 to 2 January 2033) through authorization from Limagrain Europe. And it was authorized to exclusively produce and manage the NP01154 maize in China. Hengji claimed that the seven hybrid maize varieties produced and sold by Jinyuan, including “Zheng Pin Yu 491”, “Jinyuan Yu 304”, “Zheng Yuan Yu 887”, “Jinyuan Yu 171”, “Zheng Pin Yu 597”, “Jinyuan Yu 181” and “Zheng Yuan Yu 777”, were all produced using NP01154 as a parent variety. The alleged infringing seeds covered over 30,000 acres, severely violating Hengji’s legitimate interests. On October 12, 2023, Hengji filed a lawsuit with the Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court, seeking cessation of infringement and damages totaling RMB 160 million (USD 22 million), plus RMB 200,000 (USD 28 thousand) for legal expenses.
Jinyuan argues that based on the test reports for 40 loci commissioned by local administrative departments and the test reports for five specific loci markers “D7, D10, phi022, phi027, phi061,” the parent breeding materials “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” used by Jinyuan differ from the authorized variety “NP01154” at five loci. According to the standards for determining variety authenticity, they are considered different varieties. Additionally, quality tests comparing crude starch and amylose content showed that the allegedly infringing breeding materials “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” are waxy maize, while “NP01154” is regular maize. Due to their different biological characteristics, they are classified as different varieties. Therefore, Jinyuan requests the dismissal of Hengji’s lawsuit.
The Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court, referring to the Article 11.1 of Agricultural Industry Standard “Technical Procedure for Maize Variety Identification SSR Marker Method” (NY/T1432-2014), concluded that when the number of differential loci between samples is ≥2, they are determined to be different varieties. The evidence submitted by Jinyuan demonstrated that their parent materials for the allegedly infringing maize seeds have five differential loci compared to “NP01154,” classifying them as different varieties. The court dismissed Hengji’s claims. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Hengji appealed to the Supreme People’s Court.
[Second Instance Hearing]
In the second instance, Hengji submitted test reports commissioned by other administrative departments, showing zero differential loci at 40 loci and zero differential loci for the comparison loci “D7, D10, phi022, phi027, phi061” The tested samples were sourced from the Ministry of Agriculture’s Plant Variety Protection Office’s Plant Variety Preservation Center’s standard sample of “YZ320.”
The court of second instance found that the dispute in the case consisted of four substantive issues and one procedural issue. The substantive issues include:
1. Whether Hengji had fulfilled the initial burden of proof regarding the identity of the parent varieties of the seven hybrid varieties under litigation.2. Whether additional testing of “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” against “NP01154” at the five specific loci “D7, D10, phi022, phi027, phi061” conforms to judicial interpretation provisions and whether the results prove they are different varieties.3. Whether Jinyuan’s defense that “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” are waxy maize and “NP01154” is regular maize, classifying them as different varieties, is valid.4. If the accused hybrids constitute infringement, how to determine the compensation amount.
The procedural dispute focused on whether the first-instance court deprived Hengji of its litigation rights.
Conclusion
After thorough examination of the evidence and accurate identification of technical facts, the panel will render a judgment at a later date. The ruling for this case has not yet been issued. Considering the typical timeline for cases heard by the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court in China, a decision is likely to be forthcoming within 6 to 12 months from the date of the hearing. Therefore, a judgment can be reasonably expected between October 2024 and April 2025, it depends on the court’s caseload.
This dispute between Hengji and Jinyuan highlights the complexity and significance of intellectual property protection in the agricultural sector. As technology and agricultural innovation continue to advance, the protection of plant variety rights becomes increasingly crucial. Future rulings in similar cases will not only affect the involved parties but also have far-reaching implications for the entire industry.
We look forward to the judicial system continuing to refine relevant laws and regulations, enhancing the scientific and fair nature of judicial decisions, and ensuring the fairness and effectiveness of intellectual property protection. Seed companies should also enhance their research and protection awareness, proactively addressing both technological and legal challenges. Only with the dual assurance of law and technology can agricultural innovation be promoted, fostering healthy industry development and achieving the grand goal of agricultural modernization.
[Case Background]
Hengji holds rights to the new maize variety “NP01154” (PVR Registration Number: CNA20150107.1; Date of PVR Registration/Grant: 2 January 2018; Validity period from 2 January 2018 to 2 January 2033) through authorization from Limagrain Europe. And it was authorized to exclusively produce and manage the NP01154 maize in China. Hengji claimed that the seven hybrid maize varieties produced and sold by Jinyuan, including “Zheng Pin Yu 491”, “Jinyuan Yu 304”, “Zheng Yuan Yu 887”, “Jinyuan Yu 171”, “Zheng Pin Yu 597”, “Jinyuan Yu 181” and “Zheng Yuan Yu 777”, were all produced using NP01154 as a parent variety. The alleged infringing seeds covered over 30,000 acres, severely violating Hengji’s legitimate interests. On October 12, 2023, Hengji filed a lawsuit with the Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court, seeking cessation of infringement and damages totaling RMB 160 million (USD 22 million), plus RMB 200,000 (USD 28 thousand) for legal expenses.
Jinyuan argues that based on the test reports for 40 loci commissioned by local administrative departments and the test reports for five specific loci markers “D7, D10, phi022, phi027, phi061,” the parent breeding materials “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” used by Jinyuan differ from the authorized variety “NP01154” at five loci. According to the standards for determining variety authenticity, they are considered different varieties. Additionally, quality tests comparing crude starch and amylose content showed that the allegedly infringing breeding materials “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” are waxy maize, while “NP01154” is regular maize. Due to their different biological characteristics, they are classified as different varieties. Therefore, Jinyuan requests the dismissal of Hengji’s lawsuit.
The Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court, referring to the Article 11.1 of Agricultural Industry Standard “Technical Procedure for Maize Variety Identification SSR Marker Method” (NY/T1432-2014), concluded that when the number of differential loci between samples is ≥2, they are determined to be different varieties. The evidence submitted by Jinyuan demonstrated that their parent materials for the allegedly infringing maize seeds have five differential loci compared to “NP01154,” classifying them as different varieties. The court dismissed Hengji’s claims. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Hengji appealed to the Supreme People’s Court.
[Second Instance Hearing]
In the second instance, Hengji submitted test reports commissioned by other administrative departments, showing zero differential loci at 40 loci and zero differential loci for the comparison loci “D7, D10, phi022, phi027, phi061” The tested samples were sourced from the Ministry of Agriculture’s Plant Variety Protection Office’s Plant Variety Preservation Center’s standard sample of “YZ320.”
The court of second instance found that the dispute in the case consisted of four substantive issues and one procedural issue. The substantive issues include:
1. Whether Hengji had fulfilled the initial burden of proof regarding the identity of the parent varieties of the seven hybrid varieties under litigation.2. Whether additional testing of “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” against “NP01154” at the five specific loci “D7, D10, phi022, phi027, phi061” conforms to judicial interpretation provisions and whether the results prove they are different varieties.3. Whether Jinyuan’s defense that “JCD15YZ320” and “YZ320” are waxy maize and “NP01154” is regular maize, classifying them as different varieties, is valid.4. If the accused hybrids constitute infringement, how to determine the compensation amount.
The procedural dispute focused on whether the first-instance court deprived Hengji of its litigation rights.
Conclusion
After thorough examination of the evidence and accurate identification of technical facts, the panel will render a judgment at a later date. The ruling for this case has not yet been issued. Considering the typical timeline for cases heard by the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court in China, a decision is likely to be forthcoming within 6 to 12 months from the date of the hearing. Therefore, a judgment can be reasonably expected between October 2024 and April 2025, it depends on the court’s caseload.
This dispute between Hengji and Jinyuan highlights the complexity and significance of intellectual property protection in the agricultural sector. As technology and agricultural innovation continue to advance, the protection of plant variety rights becomes increasingly crucial. Future rulings in similar cases will not only affect the involved parties but also have far-reaching implications for the entire industry.
We look forward to the judicial system continuing to refine relevant laws and regulations, enhancing the scientific and fair nature of judicial decisions, and ensuring the fairness and effectiveness of intellectual property protection. Seed companies should also enhance their research and protection awareness, proactively addressing both technological and legal challenges. Only with the dual assurance of law and technology can agricultural innovation be promoted, fostering healthy industry development and achieving the grand goal of agricultural modernization.