Envy Apple PVR Protection Supported by China’s Supreme Court - RMB 33 Million Awarded
Published 12 March 2025
Yu Du
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued a final decision in a widely published PVR enforcement case, upholding the judgment made by the Gansu Provincial Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court in November 2023, which ruled that the defendant had illegally planted and sold apple plant material and apples harvested from illegal planting materials of the “Scilate” apple variety (also known as “赛雷特”) held by Enzafruit New Zealand International Limited (Enzafruit), thus infringing Enzafruit’s PVRs. The courts not only confirmed the infringement but also supported Enzafruit’s application for punitive damages, awarding Enzafruit RMB 33 million in compensation and ordering the defendant to destroy the illegal plant materials.
[Case History]
The apple plant variety “Scilate” was filed for grant of PVRs (PVR) by New Zealand Plant & Food Research Limited in China on 30 March 2012, and was granted PVR on 30 December 2021 (PVR No. CNA20120292.9). This variety is commercially known under the brand name “Envy”. In 2018, Enzafruit granted Joy Wing Mau the exclusive rights to grow and sell a certain quantity of Envy apples in China. Joy Wing Mau became the only authorized grower in the region. However, in September 2022, Enzafruit initiated an infringement lawsuit after discovering illegal planting and sales activities. By conducting DNA analysis of the infringing breeding materials, Enzafruit won the lawsuit. In November 2023, the Gansu Provincial Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a favorable decision, ordering the illegal grower to compensate Enzafruit with a substantial amount, which was fully supported by the SPC.
[Legal Basis]
This court decision is based on the amended PRC Seed Law, which took effect on 1 March 2022. Previously, the old Seed Law did not protect harvested materials of plant varieties, but the revised law expanded protection to include both breeding materials and harvested materials of protected plant varieties.
According to Article 28, Paragraph 2 of the Seed Law, no entity or individual may produce, propagate, treat, promise to sell, sell, import, export, or store breeding materials of a protected plant variety for commercial purposes without the permission of the PVR holder. Paragraph 3 further stipulates that any harvested material derived from the unauthorized use of breeding materials must also be approved by the PVR holder, unless the holder has had a reasonable opportunity to exercise their rights over the breeding materials.
The revised Seed Law strengthens protections for plant variety rights holders and allows for punitive damages in cases of infringement, in addition to statutory compensation.
Article 72, Paragraph 3 of the Seed Law states that compensation for infringement of PVRs should be determined based on the actual losses suffered by the rights holder. If actual losses are difficult to determine, compensation can be based on the infringer’s profits. In cases of intentional infringement with severe circumstances, compensation may be increased by a factor of one to five times.
Additionally, vegetatively propagated varieties, which are mainly propagated through methods such as cuttings and grafting, present challenges in determining the nature of planting behavior in infringement cases. According to Article 5 of the SPC’s Several Provisions on the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of PVRs Infringement Cases (II), courts can classify planting breeding materials of an authorized variety as production or propagation based on the specific circumstances of the case.
The SPC clarified the application of planting behavior in a 2022 case involving the “Luli” apple variety. In that case, the defendant argued in the second-instance trial that the purpose of planting “Luli” apple trees was to “bear fruit” rather than to propagate. The court ruled that even if the purpose was fruit production, the infringer must have propagated the authorized variety’s seedlings before obtaining the fruit, thus constituting an infringement of the breeding material. That case provides important guidance for the adjudication of following similar cases.
[Comment]
This case marks a milestone in the PVR enforcement in China, as the compensation awarded is the highest in a civil lawsuit involving vegetatively propagated plant varieties. The court’s application of punitive damages highlights its commitment to the strict PVR protection. It is clear that this ruling will set an important precedent for future PVR cases, providing legitimate PVR holders with stronger legal protections against infringement, while infringers will face more severe legal consequences.
[Case History]
The apple plant variety “Scilate” was filed for grant of PVRs (PVR) by New Zealand Plant & Food Research Limited in China on 30 March 2012, and was granted PVR on 30 December 2021 (PVR No. CNA20120292.9). This variety is commercially known under the brand name “Envy”. In 2018, Enzafruit granted Joy Wing Mau the exclusive rights to grow and sell a certain quantity of Envy apples in China. Joy Wing Mau became the only authorized grower in the region. However, in September 2022, Enzafruit initiated an infringement lawsuit after discovering illegal planting and sales activities. By conducting DNA analysis of the infringing breeding materials, Enzafruit won the lawsuit. In November 2023, the Gansu Provincial Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a favorable decision, ordering the illegal grower to compensate Enzafruit with a substantial amount, which was fully supported by the SPC.
[Legal Basis]
This court decision is based on the amended PRC Seed Law, which took effect on 1 March 2022. Previously, the old Seed Law did not protect harvested materials of plant varieties, but the revised law expanded protection to include both breeding materials and harvested materials of protected plant varieties.
According to Article 28, Paragraph 2 of the Seed Law, no entity or individual may produce, propagate, treat, promise to sell, sell, import, export, or store breeding materials of a protected plant variety for commercial purposes without the permission of the PVR holder. Paragraph 3 further stipulates that any harvested material derived from the unauthorized use of breeding materials must also be approved by the PVR holder, unless the holder has had a reasonable opportunity to exercise their rights over the breeding materials.
The revised Seed Law strengthens protections for plant variety rights holders and allows for punitive damages in cases of infringement, in addition to statutory compensation.
Article 72, Paragraph 3 of the Seed Law states that compensation for infringement of PVRs should be determined based on the actual losses suffered by the rights holder. If actual losses are difficult to determine, compensation can be based on the infringer’s profits. In cases of intentional infringement with severe circumstances, compensation may be increased by a factor of one to five times.
Additionally, vegetatively propagated varieties, which are mainly propagated through methods such as cuttings and grafting, present challenges in determining the nature of planting behavior in infringement cases. According to Article 5 of the SPC’s Several Provisions on the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of PVRs Infringement Cases (II), courts can classify planting breeding materials of an authorized variety as production or propagation based on the specific circumstances of the case.
The SPC clarified the application of planting behavior in a 2022 case involving the “Luli” apple variety. In that case, the defendant argued in the second-instance trial that the purpose of planting “Luli” apple trees was to “bear fruit” rather than to propagate. The court ruled that even if the purpose was fruit production, the infringer must have propagated the authorized variety’s seedlings before obtaining the fruit, thus constituting an infringement of the breeding material. That case provides important guidance for the adjudication of following similar cases.
[Comment]
This case marks a milestone in the PVR enforcement in China, as the compensation awarded is the highest in a civil lawsuit involving vegetatively propagated plant varieties. The court’s application of punitive damages highlights its commitment to the strict PVR protection. It is clear that this ruling will set an important precedent for future PVR cases, providing legitimate PVR holders with stronger legal protections against infringement, while infringers will face more severe legal consequences.