China - Review of Plant Variety Rights Invalidation Upon Request and the Examination of Distinctness: A Supreme People’s Court Case Commentary
Published 30 July 2025
Yu Du
On 18 July 2025, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court released a guiding case, involving the review of plant variety rights (PVR) invalidation proceedings initiated upon request, and the criteria for assessing the distinctness of a plant variety. This case arose from a dispute between the appellant (plaintiff in first instance), Hui Company, and the appellee, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs’ Plant Variety Rights Reexamination Committee, as well as the third party, the PVR holder - Kang Seed Company. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the boundaries of procedural obligations during invalidation reviews and provides guidance on the evidentiary burden concerning distinctness in PVR disputes.
Case History
On 14 December 2020, the appellant (Hui Company) filed a request with the Plant Variety Rights Reexamination Committee (Committee) to invalidate the PVR for a corn variety named “FL218”, owned by the third party (Kang Seed Company). The invalidation was based on the alleged lack of novelty, claiming the variety had already been widely produced and sold before the application date.
On 3 December 2021, the Committee issued Decision No. 37 (2021), upholding the validity of the “FL218” rights, concluding that evidence was insufficient to prove a loss of novelty or distinctness.
The appellant filed an appeal, which was rejected at first instance. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court rendered a final decision on 24 December 2024, affirming the original judgment and upholding the Committee’s decision.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court addressed three key issues:
1. Legality of the Review Procedure
In invalidation procedures initiated by request, the Committee is required to examine only the reasons stated in the invalidation request form. If new grounds are introduced elsewhere (e.g., in supplemental documents), the Committee must notify the petitioner to amend the request. Otherwise, those grounds are not deemed properly raised.
In this case, the appellant only formally raised lack of novelty in its written request. The Committee proceeded to examine distinctness without asking the appellant to clarify or supplement its claims, which constituted a procedural irregularity. However, because all parties, including the rights holder, agreed to the review of distinctness during the proceedings, and the rights holder had an opportunity to respond, the Supreme Court held that no procedural violation occurred.
2. Assessment of Novelty
The Court found that the appellant failed to present reliable evidence, such as credible witness testimony or documents, proving that “FL218” had been disclosed or commercially exploited before the filing date. Therefore, the determination that the variety retained novelty was upheld.
3. Assessment of Distinctness
To challenge a variety’s distinctness, the burden is on the petitioner to identify known comparator varieties and submit evidence, such as DNA testing or field trials, to demonstrate the lack of clear differences.
The appellant failed to prove that the comparator lines it cited were legally “known varieties” as of the filing date. Further, its submitted evidence lacked corroboration, and there was no credible indication that “FL218” and the referenced lines were indistinguishable. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof on distinctness.
Key Points from the Supreme Court’s Judgement
1. Scope of Review in Invalidation Proceedings
When an invalidation procedure is initiated upon request, review is limited to the expressly stated grounds. Supplementary grounds must be clarified formally.
2. Burden of Proof for Distinctness
The petitioner must identify valid prior varieties and submit credible technical evidence to support claims of non-distinctness.
3. Tolerance for Procedural Irregularities
Procedural errors may not invalidate the decision if both parties are heard and due process is ultimately observed.
Comment
By releasing this case and articulating its core holdings, the Supreme People’s Court provides valuable guidance for the adjudication of future PVR disputes. The ruling establishes clear standards for procedural conduct in invalidation cases and reinforces the evidentiary thresholds for assessing key PVR conditions such as novelty and distinctness. This promotes consistency and predictability in administrative and judicial reviews of plant variety rights in China.
Case History
On 14 December 2020, the appellant (Hui Company) filed a request with the Plant Variety Rights Reexamination Committee (Committee) to invalidate the PVR for a corn variety named “FL218”, owned by the third party (Kang Seed Company). The invalidation was based on the alleged lack of novelty, claiming the variety had already been widely produced and sold before the application date.
On 3 December 2021, the Committee issued Decision No. 37 (2021), upholding the validity of the “FL218” rights, concluding that evidence was insufficient to prove a loss of novelty or distinctness.
The appellant filed an appeal, which was rejected at first instance. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court rendered a final decision on 24 December 2024, affirming the original judgment and upholding the Committee’s decision.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court addressed three key issues:
1. Legality of the Review Procedure
In invalidation procedures initiated by request, the Committee is required to examine only the reasons stated in the invalidation request form. If new grounds are introduced elsewhere (e.g., in supplemental documents), the Committee must notify the petitioner to amend the request. Otherwise, those grounds are not deemed properly raised.
In this case, the appellant only formally raised lack of novelty in its written request. The Committee proceeded to examine distinctness without asking the appellant to clarify or supplement its claims, which constituted a procedural irregularity. However, because all parties, including the rights holder, agreed to the review of distinctness during the proceedings, and the rights holder had an opportunity to respond, the Supreme Court held that no procedural violation occurred.
2. Assessment of Novelty
The Court found that the appellant failed to present reliable evidence, such as credible witness testimony or documents, proving that “FL218” had been disclosed or commercially exploited before the filing date. Therefore, the determination that the variety retained novelty was upheld.
3. Assessment of Distinctness
To challenge a variety’s distinctness, the burden is on the petitioner to identify known comparator varieties and submit evidence, such as DNA testing or field trials, to demonstrate the lack of clear differences.
The appellant failed to prove that the comparator lines it cited were legally “known varieties” as of the filing date. Further, its submitted evidence lacked corroboration, and there was no credible indication that “FL218” and the referenced lines were indistinguishable. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof on distinctness.
Key Points from the Supreme Court’s Judgement
1. Scope of Review in Invalidation Proceedings
When an invalidation procedure is initiated upon request, review is limited to the expressly stated grounds. Supplementary grounds must be clarified formally.
2. Burden of Proof for Distinctness
The petitioner must identify valid prior varieties and submit credible technical evidence to support claims of non-distinctness.
3. Tolerance for Procedural Irregularities
Procedural errors may not invalidate the decision if both parties are heard and due process is ultimately observed.
Comment
By releasing this case and articulating its core holdings, the Supreme People’s Court provides valuable guidance for the adjudication of future PVR disputes. The ruling establishes clear standards for procedural conduct in invalidation cases and reinforces the evidentiary thresholds for assessing key PVR conditions such as novelty and distinctness. This promotes consistency and predictability in administrative and judicial reviews of plant variety rights in China.