China’s SPC Issues a New Batch of Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry
Published 31 March 2026
Xia Yu
On 26 March 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) released the sixth batch of typical cases on judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry – this marks the sixth consecutive year since 2021 that the SPC has published seed‑related IP cases. The cases were selected from cases concluded in 2025 by nine courts across the country, comprising 10 typical cases, including 9 civil infringement cases and 1 administrative penalty case concerning new plant varieties. The varieties involved cover major crops such as corn, rice, wheat and soybean, as well as fruit and vegetable varieties including tomato, apple and pomegranate.
Compared with the previous five batches, this batch of cases demonstrates three major features: first, increased application of punitive damages, with four cases applying this system, among which the “NP01154” corn variety infringement case awarded damages of over RMB 53.347 million (approx. US$ 7.707 million) , setting a new record for damages in new plant variety infringement cases in China; second, refinement of adjudicative rules, such as specifying the standards and specific methods for rendering infringing seedlings of asexually reproduced varieties inactive; third, wide geographical coverage, involving nine provinces and autonomous regions, and the case types include “badging” infringement, “white bag” infringement, storage infringement and import infringement. These cases reflect the clear judicial orientation of the people’s courts to strengthen the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry and deeply implement the seed industry revitalization action.
Typical Case 1: “NP01154” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Heng Company v. Jin Company; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 337 in Intellectual Property – The case establishes two adjudicative rules: first, expansion of locus testing must satisfy stringent scientific prerequisites (the difference in loci between the test sample and control sample must be less than but close to the threshold, and the added loci must possess sufficient genetic polymorphism and strong correlation with phenotype), otherwise the test results are not probative; second, for non-pecuniary obligations, a default judgment may specify late payment fees to ensure enforceability.
Heng Company, the exclusive licensee of the corn new plant variety “NP01154”, filed suit alleging that seven hybrid corn varieties produced and sold by Jin Company, including “Zhengpin Yu 491”, were produced using “NP01154” as a parent without authorization. At first instance, Heng Company submitted four test reports showing that the parent “YZ320” of the accused variety differed from “NP01154” by one locus. Jin Company submitted Report No. 2994 claiming that after adding five loci, four showed differences. The first instance court accepted Jin Company’s report and dismissed all of Heng Company’s claims.
On second instance, the SPC held that when using molecular marker methods to determine the identity of the accused variety’s parent with the protected variety, expansion of locus testing must be premised on the difference between the test sample and control sample being less than but close to the threshold, and the added loci must have sufficient genetic polymorphism and stability, strong correlation between linked genes and phenotype, and the reliability of such correlation must have been scientifically evaluated and validated with functional markers tightly linked to the traits. The test report submitted by Jin Company did not satisfy the prerequisites for expansion of locus testing and thus lacked probative value. The evidence in the case established that the parent (male parent) of the seven accused hybrid corn varieties was identical to the protected variety. Jin Company’s conduct therefore constituted infringement of the “NP01154” variety right. Given Jin Company’s wilful infringement—involving seven approved hybrid varieties, spanning five years of infringement, and covering approximately 549 hectares of production area—the circumstances were deemed egregious, warranting punitive damages.
Judgment: First instance judgment reversed; Jin Company ordered to cease infringement; economic damages of RMB 53.347 million (approx. US$ 7.707 million) and reasonable enforcement costs of RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 28,900) awarded; three specific measures for ceasing infringement imposed (cease use and sale of infringing seeds; destroy reproductive activity of infringing seeds; notify shareholders and affiliates and require non-infringement undertakings); late payment fees set at RMB 100,000, RMB 50,000, and RMB 20,000 (approx. US$ 14,400, US$ 7,200, and US$ 2,900) per day for failure to comply with the three measures respectively.
Typical Case 2: “Nongmai 88” Wheat New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Fengfeng Seed Company v. Zheng, Cheng, Zhang and Lu; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Civil Judgment No. 417 in Intellectual Property – This case is a typical example of directly characterizing storage conduct as direct infringement under Article 28 of the Seed Law [ https://www.forestry.gov.cn/search/300067 ] s amended in 2021. In joint torts, punitive damages apply to willful infringers, while negligent infringers are jointly and severally liable only for compensatory damages.
Fengfeng Seed Company, the holder of the wheat new plant variety “Nongmai 88”, filed suit. Starting in 2022, Zheng and Cheng Ming jointly produced and sold seeds of “Nongmai 88” in unmarked “white bag” packaging. An agent of Fengfeng Seed Company contacted Zheng and, at Zheng’s direction, purchased 15,000 kg of the “white bag” seeds from Cheng Ming for RMB 51,900 (approx. US$ 7,500). The seeds were stored in warehouses owned by Zhang and Lu. The first instance court found Zheng and Cheng Ming jointly liable but did not support the claims against Zhang and Lu, nor punitive damages, and awarded RMB 300,000 (approx. US$ 43,300) in economic damages and reasonable expenses.
On second instance, the SPC held that under the amended Seed Law, producing, selling, and storing reproductive material of a protected variety for purposes of infringement constitute direct infringement. Where a combination of willful and negligent conduct causes harm in a joint tort, the actors bear corresponding joint and several liability. Willful infringement of new plant variety rights under egregious circumstances warrants punitive damages, while negligent infringers are jointly and severally liable only for the compensatory portion of damages. Zheng and Cheng Ming had collaborated since 2022 in producing, selling, and storing “white bag” seeds of “Nongmai 88”, demonstrating clear willfulness; selling infringing seeds in unmarked packaging over an extended period in substantial quantities constituted egregious circumstances, warranting treble punitive damages. Zhang, who had prior experience in the seed industry and thus specialized knowledge, and Lu, as warehouse owners, failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the long-term storage of unlabeled seeds in their warehouses—constituting gross negligence—and objectively provided storage facilities for the infringement. Zhang and Lu were therefore jointly liable with Zheng and Cheng Ming, but only for the compensatory portion of damages.
Judgment: All four defendants ordered to cease infringement; Zheng and Cheng Ming ordered to pay economic damages of RMB 1.575 million (approx. US$ 227,500) and reasonable enforcement costs of RMB 58,900 (approx. US$ 8,500); Zhang and Lu jointly and severally liable for RMB 525,000 (approx. US$ 75,800) thereof.
Typical Case 3: “Jihong 6” Rice New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Quan Nong Seed Company v. Fu Nong Seed Company; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Civil Judgment No. 686 in Intellectual Property – This case establishes that badging infringement—where the label does not match the actual seed—directly establishes willful intent and constitutes “egregious circumstances” warranting punitive damages.
Quan Nong Seed Company acquired the new plant variety right for “Jihong 6” rice. It discovered that “Fuxia 3”, produced and sold by Fu Nong Seed Company, was suspected to be “Jihong 6”. Entrusting Jianghan University Testing Centre with authenticity testing, the results showed zero locus differences and 100% genetic similarity, indicating the varieties were extremely similar or identical. The first instance court found infringement and awarded economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 180,000 (approx. US$ 26,000).
On second instance, the SPC held that Fu Nong Seed Company, as one of the applicants and breeders of the approved variety “Fuxia 3”, had clear knowledge of its characteristics, yet labelled the accused seeds with information inconsistent with its own approved variety but consistent with the characteristics of “Jihong 6”, demonstrating clear willful intent. The conduct violated mandatory seed labelling regulations, using badging to conceal the true information of the infringing seeds and evade seed industry supervision. The infringement persisted for five years with stable production and sales scales, causing significant harm, satisfying the “egregious circumstances” requirement for punitive damages.
Judgment: Cease infringement; pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 506,000 (approx. US$ 73,100) (applying double punitive damages).
Typical Case 4: “Jijia” Tomato New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Beijing Shizhong Seedling Company v. Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company, Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company, Xibei Tianmou Agriculture Company, Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company; Second Instance, SPC (2023) Final Civil Judgment No. 3168 in Intellectual Property – This case refines the infringement determination rules for seed imports: where import occurs before grant of the variety right but sale occurs after grant, the conduct still constitutes infringement. Liability among upstream and downstream actors is apportioned according to the degree of fault, with the principal organizer of imports and leader of repackaging and sales bearing primary liability, while affiliated sellers, propagators, and importers bear joint and several liability to the extent of their fault.
Beijing Shizhong Seedling Company held the variety right for “Jijia” tomato, with application date 27 August 2018 and grant date 31 December 2020. In September 2020, Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company arranged for a third party, Beijing Jinmou Company, to import “Jiana” tomato seeds for sale in China. In October–November 2020, Beijing Jinmou Company engaged Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company to handle import procedures. On 25 December 2020, Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company imported “JIANA3” tomato seeds from a South Korean company and delivered them to Beijing Jinmou Company on 28 December 2020. Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company, having obtained the seeds, repackaged the same batch of “JIANA3” seeds into “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3” and sold them through Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company, Xibei Tianmou Agriculture Company, and others. In March 2021, Beijing Shizhong Seedling Company purchased “Jiana No. 1” seeds from Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company. Testing showed that both “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3” were similar to “Jijia”. The first instance court found all four defendants liable for infringement and ordered them to cease infringement and bear corresponding civil liability.
On second instance, the SPC held that where import occurs before the variety right is granted in China but the sale occurs after the grant, any subsequent sale of the variety’s reproductive material requires the variety right holder’s authorization; otherwise, it constitutes infringement. Although import of the seeds occurred on 25 December 2020, before the grant of “Jijia”, the acts of repackaging, sale, and propagation by Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company and others all occurred after the grant without authorization, constituting infringement. Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company, as organiser of the import and leader of repackaging and sales, had willful intent. Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company had a related-party relationship with Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company. Xibei Tianmou Agriculture Company failed to prove the lawful source of the propagated seeds or the reasonableness of the transaction price, thus its lawful source defense failed. Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company, as importer, failed to quarantine the seeds as required, failing to exercise due diligence, and objectively facilitated subsequent sales—thus bearing corresponding liability.
Judgment: Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company bears primary liability, paying economic damages of RMB 500,000 (approx. US$ 72,200) and reasonable expenses of RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,200); Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company and others jointly and severally liable within certain amounts.
Typical Case 5: “Pura A280” Apple New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Ai Company v. Ming Company; Second Instance, SPC (2023) Final Civil Judgment No. 1542 in Intellectual Property – Illegally obtaining reproductive material of a protected variety before the application date and planting or propagating it does not give rise to a prior right that can defeat the variety right; variety identification certificates are not civil rights instruments.
Ai Company was the exclusive sub-licensee of the new apple variety “Pura A280” with authorization from the variety right holder to enforce the right. Ai Company collected branches of “Longwei” apples from an orchard planted by Ming Company. Testing showed that the collected samples were suspected to be identical to “Pura A280”. Ming Company argued that the “Longwei” it planted was actually “Yunyin Apple No. 2”, developed by a horticultural research institute, which had obtained a Variety Identification Certificate and pre-dated the application for “Pura A280”, thus its planting did not constitute infringement. The first instance court accepted this argument, treating the Variety Identification Certificate as a rights instrument, and dismissed all claims.
On second instance, the SPC held that the evidence sufficiently established that “Longwei” was identical to “Pura A280”. Apples are asexually reproducing woody plants. Ming Company’s large-scale commercial planting of the accused saplings constituted the act of producing and propagating reproductive material of a protected variety. “Yunyin Apple No. 2” had been developed by the horticultural research institute after it had been permitted to trial-plant “Pura A280” by a related party of Ai Company, but then disclosed and propagated it in breach of confidentiality obligations and obtained a variety identification certificate. The source of the reproductive material was therefore unlawful. Yunnan Province’s non-major crop variety identification system is an administrative measure; a Variety Identification Certificate is not a civil rights instrument and cannot defeat a lawful new plant variety right. Ming Company, as the producer and propagator, directly produced and propagated reproductive material of a protected variety and did not satisfy the requirements for a lawful source defense.
Judgment: Cease infringement; Ming Company pay economic damages and reasonable enforcement costs totaling RMB 538,750 (approx. US$ 77,800); pay ongoing variety right usage fees of RMB 8 per plant per year (approx. US$ 1.16 per plant per year).
Typical Case 6: “Qihuang 34” Soybean New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Sheng Company v. Mou Xin Company and Kong Mou Chuan; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Civil Judgment No. 199 in Intellectual Property – Selling seeds in the name of a company within its business premises constitutes joint infringement; selling “white bag” seeds with large-scale storage constitutes egregious circumstances warranting punitive damages; infringement profits may be calculated by deducting commodity grain prices from infringing seed prices with appropriate upward adjustment.
Sheng Company was the exclusive licensee of the soybean new plant variety “Qihuang 34”. Sheng Company purchased 100 kg of soybean seeds labelled “Qihuang 34” from Kong Mou Chuan in a warehouse located on the premises of Mou Xin Company. Testing confirmed the seeds were identical to “Qihuang 34”. Mou Xin Company argued that the seeds were stored and sold by Kong Mou Chuan personally and unrelated to the company. The first instance court found Kong Mou Chuan liable but not Mou Xin Company.
On second instance, the SPC held that the transaction occurred on Mou Xin Company’s premises, and Kong Mou Gen, the then legal representative of Mou Xin Company, together with Kong Mou Chuan, received the purchaser, introduced the variety, and completed the transaction. Kong Mou Gen’s conduct was acting on behalf of Mou Xin Company. Mou Xin Company and Kong Mou Chuan therefore formed joint intent and coordinated action, constituting joint liability. Mou Xin Company, a professional seed enterprise, knowingly participated in the sale without authorization for “Qihuang 34”; Kong Mou Chuan sold infringing seeds without any relevant qualifications; both demonstrated clear willful intent. Selling unlabeled, untraceable “white bag” seeds with large-scale storage constituted egregious circumstances, warranting double punitive damages. The profit from the infringing seeds was calculated based on the price difference between the infringing seeds and commodity soybeans, with reference to warehouse storage capacity to determine total sales volume, resulting in infringement profits of RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 28,900).
Judgment: Mou Xin Company and Kong Mou Chuan cease infringement; jointly and severally liable for economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 412,000 (approx. US$ 59,500).
Typical Case 7: “WG646” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Wu Company v. Heyuan Company; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 763 in Intellectual Property – Where the variety right holder produces evidence that the accused variety shares substantially the same characteristics as the protected variety, a preliminary finding of identity may be made; where the alleged infringer merely argues that the accused variety is a different protected variety, such defense is generally not accepted; non-standard locus expansion testing lacks probative value.
Wu Company held the new plant variety right for “WG646” corn. Heyuan Company, without authorization, used “WG646” to illegally propagate corn seeds in Gansu Province covering an area of over 33.3 hectares. Upon application, the first instance court preserved evidence and conducted authenticity testing of the preserved accused seeds against “WG646”, using 40 core loci, with one locus difference, concluding they were similar. Heyuan Company argued that the seeds it used were “HJ8702”, a different variety. Heyuan Company also applied for evidence preservation and conducted expansion locus testing on the preserved samples against “WG646”, using 2 loci, with 2 locus differences; it also conducted authenticity testing of the preserved samples against “HJ8702” using 40 core loci, with 0 locus differences, concluding they were extremely similar or identical. The first instance court found no infringement based on the 3 locus differences.
On second instance, the SPC held that where the variety right holder produces evidence that the accused variety shares substantially the same characteristics as the protected variety, a preliminary finding of identity may be made; the alleged infringer claiming they are different varieties must provide rebuttal evidence. Whether the accused variety is another protected variety is generally not directly relevant to the infringement determination. Wu Company’s test report, based on 40 core loci with one locus difference, sufficed to conclude the accused variety was “similar” to “WG646”. The loci selected by Heyuan Company for its expansion locus testing were not among the 40 core loci prescribed by the SSR marker method for corn variety identification, constituting arbitrarily selected non-standard loci that did not comply with the standards and norms for expansion locus testing. The expansion testing report therefore lacked probative value.
Judgment: Heyuan Company cease infringement; pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 1.03 million (approx. US$ 148,800).
Typical Case 8: “Tianshihong” Pomegranate New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Fruit Tree Research Institute v. Cheng Business Department, Li Mou Cheng, and Taomou Company; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 925 in Intellectual Property – Propagation conduct may be inferred from evidence of propagation capacity and admissions; for asexually reproduced varieties, the court may order “sterilization” to eliminate all regenerative capacity; a sole proprietorship investor bears supplemental liability.
The Fruit Tree Research Institute held the new plant variety right for “Tianshihong” pomegranate. Cheng Business Department, without authorization, sold “Tianshihong” labelled pomegranate saplings on Taomou Company’s platform under the store “Shandong Qingmou Fruit Tree Farmer’s Store”. Cheng Business Department was a sole proprietorship invested by Li Mou Cheng. Its store page displayed photos of propagation bases and claimed “base direct sales”, while customer service stated the saplings came from “our own orchard”. It could not prove the lawful source of the saplings. The first instance court found only a sale of infringing seeds and ordered cessation of sales with damages of RMB 10,000 (approx. US$ 1,400).
On second instance, the SPC held that Cheng Business Department’s display of propagation base photos, customer service’s admission that the saplings came from “our own orchard”, combined with its failure to prove lawful source and its capacity as a professional seedling operator with propagation qualifications, sufficed to establish that it had produced and propagated the infringing saplings. As “Tianshihong” is an asexually reproduced variety, merely stopping sales is insufficient to prevent further dissemination. The court ordered sterilization of the infringing saplings, with measures tailored to the growth stage. Based on the annual license fee of RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,200) derived from the evidence, and considering the circumstances of the infringement, the value of the variety, and reasonable enforcement costs, the damages were set at three times the license fee.
Judgment: Cease production, propagation, and sale of “Tianshihong” pomegranate reproductive material; sterilize infringing saplings within 15 days; Cheng Business Department pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 150,000 (approx. US$ 21,700); Li Mou Cheng, as the sole proprietor investor, to the extent that Cheng Business Department’s assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, shall supplement with personal assets.
Typical Case 9: “WH818” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Heng Company v. Bo Company; First Instance, Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court (2022) Civil First Instance No. 40 in Intellectual Property; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 194 in Intellectual Property – The court held that the defendant’s use of its own registered trademark on the accused variety supports an inference that it is the producer; combined with the parent-child relationship test results and the defendant’s failure to disclose the parent source, the court found infringement, thereby reducing the burden of proof on the holder of the parent variety right.
Heng Company was one of the holders of the new plant variety right for “WH818” corn and was authorized by the other holder to enforce the right. Bo Company, a company qualified for corn production and operation, had registered the “Bohong” and “Weifeng” trademarks. The “Bohong Caitiannuo” and “Weifeng Caitiannuo” varieties produced and sold by Bo Company were hybrid varieties using “WH818” as a parent. During the first instance proceedings, Heng Company applied for parent-child relationship testing. Testing showed that both “Bohong Caitiannuo” and “Weifeng Caitiannuo” had a suspected parent-child relationship with “WH818”. Bo Company denied the test results but did not provide information on the parent seeds used to produce the accused varieties.
The first instance court held that Bo Company, having used its own registered trademarks on the accused varieties and noted its company name on the packaging, was presumed to be the producer of the accused varieties absent adequate explanation of their source. Combined with Bo Company’s failure to prove the source of the parent seeds, the court found that Bo Company had produced and sold the accused seeds using “WH818” without authorization, constituting infringement.
Judgment: Bo Company cease infringement; pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 28,900). Bo Company appealed; the SPC second instance judgment affirmed.
Typical Case 10: “R900” Rice New Plant Variety Administrative Penalty Case, Ke Company v. Ninghua County People’s Government and Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau; First Instance, Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Fujian Province (2024) Administrative First Instance No. 110; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Administrative Judgment No. 195 in Intellectual Property – A civil settlement does not preclude an administrative penalty based on public interest; administrative penalties must consider factors including the scale of infringement, the degree of disruption to seed industry order, and the potential impact on national agricultural seed security.
Yuan Company held the new plant variety right for “R900” rice and had not authorized Ke Company to use the variety. In 2021, Ke Company contracted for the production of “Keliangyou 9218” rice seeds in Ninghua County, Fujian Province. The male parent was suspected to infringe the “R900” variety right. Following a complaint by Yuan Company, the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau investigated and found that Ke Company had contracted for seed production covering 24.7 hectares in June 2021, and seized 75,800 kg of infringing seeds. Both SSR marker testing and field planting comparison confirmed that the male parent of the seeds was extremely similar or identical to “R900”. In November 2021, Ke Company and Yuan Company entered into a settlement agreement under which Ke Company admitted infringement and paid RMB 2.8 million (approx. US$ 404,400) in compensation, and Yuan Company issued a letter of understanding. In March 2024, the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau imposed an administrative penalty of RMB 18.192 million (approx. US$ 2.628 million) on Ke Company. Ke Company’s administrative reconsideration was upheld, and it filed suit seeking annulment of the penalty and reconsideration decisions, arguing lack of intent, the existing civil settlement, and procedural violations. The first instance court upheld the penalty decisions and dismissed Ke Company’s claims.
On second instance, the SPC held that whether an infringement harms the public interest must be assessed by considering factors such as the scale of the unauthorized seed production, the degree of disruption to seed industry production and business order, and the potential impact on national agricultural seed security. Ke Company, without the variety right holder’s authorization, contracted for production of hybrid rice seeds using “R900” as the male parent, infringing the “R900” variety right. This was established by two rounds of testing and Ke Company’s admission in the settlement agreement. The scale of production was substantial, and the conduct harmed public interests including the order of the seed industry market, thus satisfying the conditions for administrative penalties under the Seed Law. Administrative and civil liabilities are distinct categories of legal responsibility. Although Ke Company and Yuan Company reached a civil settlement, the assumption of civil liability does not automatically exempt or substitute for administrative liability. The Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, taking into account the circumstances of the violation and mitigating factors, applied the lower bound of the statutory penalty calculation method—a five-times penalty—which complied with the principle of proportionality between penalty and offence.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed; first instance judgment affirmed (administrative penalty upheld).
Conclusion
Through unifying adjudicative standards, clarifying previously ambiguous practices, and raising evidentiary thresholds and damages awards, the sixth batch of typical cases demonstrate the latest judicial approach to IP protection in China’s seed industry: determining infringement under stricter standards, allocating liability through more refined rules, and awarding damages with greater severity. These cases establish far-reaching adjudicative rules across several areas—from the determination of infringement in import scenarios, to the assumption of liability for storage activities, to the risk of administrative penalties even after civil settlements.
Compared with the previous five batches, this batch of cases demonstrates three major features: first, increased application of punitive damages, with four cases applying this system, among which the “NP01154” corn variety infringement case awarded damages of over RMB 53.347 million (approx. US$ 7.707 million) , setting a new record for damages in new plant variety infringement cases in China; second, refinement of adjudicative rules, such as specifying the standards and specific methods for rendering infringing seedlings of asexually reproduced varieties inactive; third, wide geographical coverage, involving nine provinces and autonomous regions, and the case types include “badging” infringement, “white bag” infringement, storage infringement and import infringement. These cases reflect the clear judicial orientation of the people’s courts to strengthen the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry and deeply implement the seed industry revitalization action.
Typical Case 1: “NP01154” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Heng Company v. Jin Company; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 337 in Intellectual Property – The case establishes two adjudicative rules: first, expansion of locus testing must satisfy stringent scientific prerequisites (the difference in loci between the test sample and control sample must be less than but close to the threshold, and the added loci must possess sufficient genetic polymorphism and strong correlation with phenotype), otherwise the test results are not probative; second, for non-pecuniary obligations, a default judgment may specify late payment fees to ensure enforceability.
Heng Company, the exclusive licensee of the corn new plant variety “NP01154”, filed suit alleging that seven hybrid corn varieties produced and sold by Jin Company, including “Zhengpin Yu 491”, were produced using “NP01154” as a parent without authorization. At first instance, Heng Company submitted four test reports showing that the parent “YZ320” of the accused variety differed from “NP01154” by one locus. Jin Company submitted Report No. 2994 claiming that after adding five loci, four showed differences. The first instance court accepted Jin Company’s report and dismissed all of Heng Company’s claims.
On second instance, the SPC held that when using molecular marker methods to determine the identity of the accused variety’s parent with the protected variety, expansion of locus testing must be premised on the difference between the test sample and control sample being less than but close to the threshold, and the added loci must have sufficient genetic polymorphism and stability, strong correlation between linked genes and phenotype, and the reliability of such correlation must have been scientifically evaluated and validated with functional markers tightly linked to the traits. The test report submitted by Jin Company did not satisfy the prerequisites for expansion of locus testing and thus lacked probative value. The evidence in the case established that the parent (male parent) of the seven accused hybrid corn varieties was identical to the protected variety. Jin Company’s conduct therefore constituted infringement of the “NP01154” variety right. Given Jin Company’s wilful infringement—involving seven approved hybrid varieties, spanning five years of infringement, and covering approximately 549 hectares of production area—the circumstances were deemed egregious, warranting punitive damages.
Judgment: First instance judgment reversed; Jin Company ordered to cease infringement; economic damages of RMB 53.347 million (approx. US$ 7.707 million) and reasonable enforcement costs of RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 28,900) awarded; three specific measures for ceasing infringement imposed (cease use and sale of infringing seeds; destroy reproductive activity of infringing seeds; notify shareholders and affiliates and require non-infringement undertakings); late payment fees set at RMB 100,000, RMB 50,000, and RMB 20,000 (approx. US$ 14,400, US$ 7,200, and US$ 2,900) per day for failure to comply with the three measures respectively.
Typical Case 2: “Nongmai 88” Wheat New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Fengfeng Seed Company v. Zheng, Cheng, Zhang and Lu; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Civil Judgment No. 417 in Intellectual Property – This case is a typical example of directly characterizing storage conduct as direct infringement under Article 28 of the Seed Law [ https://www.forestry.gov.cn/search/300067 ] s amended in 2021. In joint torts, punitive damages apply to willful infringers, while negligent infringers are jointly and severally liable only for compensatory damages.
Fengfeng Seed Company, the holder of the wheat new plant variety “Nongmai 88”, filed suit. Starting in 2022, Zheng and Cheng Ming jointly produced and sold seeds of “Nongmai 88” in unmarked “white bag” packaging. An agent of Fengfeng Seed Company contacted Zheng and, at Zheng’s direction, purchased 15,000 kg of the “white bag” seeds from Cheng Ming for RMB 51,900 (approx. US$ 7,500). The seeds were stored in warehouses owned by Zhang and Lu. The first instance court found Zheng and Cheng Ming jointly liable but did not support the claims against Zhang and Lu, nor punitive damages, and awarded RMB 300,000 (approx. US$ 43,300) in economic damages and reasonable expenses.
On second instance, the SPC held that under the amended Seed Law, producing, selling, and storing reproductive material of a protected variety for purposes of infringement constitute direct infringement. Where a combination of willful and negligent conduct causes harm in a joint tort, the actors bear corresponding joint and several liability. Willful infringement of new plant variety rights under egregious circumstances warrants punitive damages, while negligent infringers are jointly and severally liable only for the compensatory portion of damages. Zheng and Cheng Ming had collaborated since 2022 in producing, selling, and storing “white bag” seeds of “Nongmai 88”, demonstrating clear willfulness; selling infringing seeds in unmarked packaging over an extended period in substantial quantities constituted egregious circumstances, warranting treble punitive damages. Zhang, who had prior experience in the seed industry and thus specialized knowledge, and Lu, as warehouse owners, failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the long-term storage of unlabeled seeds in their warehouses—constituting gross negligence—and objectively provided storage facilities for the infringement. Zhang and Lu were therefore jointly liable with Zheng and Cheng Ming, but only for the compensatory portion of damages.
Judgment: All four defendants ordered to cease infringement; Zheng and Cheng Ming ordered to pay economic damages of RMB 1.575 million (approx. US$ 227,500) and reasonable enforcement costs of RMB 58,900 (approx. US$ 8,500); Zhang and Lu jointly and severally liable for RMB 525,000 (approx. US$ 75,800) thereof.
Typical Case 3: “Jihong 6” Rice New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Quan Nong Seed Company v. Fu Nong Seed Company; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Civil Judgment No. 686 in Intellectual Property – This case establishes that badging infringement—where the label does not match the actual seed—directly establishes willful intent and constitutes “egregious circumstances” warranting punitive damages.
Quan Nong Seed Company acquired the new plant variety right for “Jihong 6” rice. It discovered that “Fuxia 3”, produced and sold by Fu Nong Seed Company, was suspected to be “Jihong 6”. Entrusting Jianghan University Testing Centre with authenticity testing, the results showed zero locus differences and 100% genetic similarity, indicating the varieties were extremely similar or identical. The first instance court found infringement and awarded economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 180,000 (approx. US$ 26,000).
On second instance, the SPC held that Fu Nong Seed Company, as one of the applicants and breeders of the approved variety “Fuxia 3”, had clear knowledge of its characteristics, yet labelled the accused seeds with information inconsistent with its own approved variety but consistent with the characteristics of “Jihong 6”, demonstrating clear willful intent. The conduct violated mandatory seed labelling regulations, using badging to conceal the true information of the infringing seeds and evade seed industry supervision. The infringement persisted for five years with stable production and sales scales, causing significant harm, satisfying the “egregious circumstances” requirement for punitive damages.
Judgment: Cease infringement; pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 506,000 (approx. US$ 73,100) (applying double punitive damages).
Typical Case 4: “Jijia” Tomato New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Beijing Shizhong Seedling Company v. Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company, Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company, Xibei Tianmou Agriculture Company, Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company; Second Instance, SPC (2023) Final Civil Judgment No. 3168 in Intellectual Property – This case refines the infringement determination rules for seed imports: where import occurs before grant of the variety right but sale occurs after grant, the conduct still constitutes infringement. Liability among upstream and downstream actors is apportioned according to the degree of fault, with the principal organizer of imports and leader of repackaging and sales bearing primary liability, while affiliated sellers, propagators, and importers bear joint and several liability to the extent of their fault.
Beijing Shizhong Seedling Company held the variety right for “Jijia” tomato, with application date 27 August 2018 and grant date 31 December 2020. In September 2020, Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company arranged for a third party, Beijing Jinmou Company, to import “Jiana” tomato seeds for sale in China. In October–November 2020, Beijing Jinmou Company engaged Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company to handle import procedures. On 25 December 2020, Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company imported “JIANA3” tomato seeds from a South Korean company and delivered them to Beijing Jinmou Company on 28 December 2020. Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company, having obtained the seeds, repackaged the same batch of “JIANA3” seeds into “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3” and sold them through Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company, Xibei Tianmou Agriculture Company, and others. In March 2021, Beijing Shizhong Seedling Company purchased “Jiana No. 1” seeds from Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company. Testing showed that both “Jiana No. 1” and “Jiana No. 3” were similar to “Jijia”. The first instance court found all four defendants liable for infringement and ordered them to cease infringement and bear corresponding civil liability.
On second instance, the SPC held that where import occurs before the variety right is granted in China but the sale occurs after the grant, any subsequent sale of the variety’s reproductive material requires the variety right holder’s authorization; otherwise, it constitutes infringement. Although import of the seeds occurred on 25 December 2020, before the grant of “Jijia”, the acts of repackaging, sale, and propagation by Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company and others all occurred after the grant without authorization, constituting infringement. Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company, as organiser of the import and leader of repackaging and sales, had willful intent. Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company had a related-party relationship with Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company. Xibei Tianmou Agriculture Company failed to prove the lawful source of the propagated seeds or the reasonableness of the transaction price, thus its lawful source defense failed. Guangdong Jinmou Agriculture Company, as importer, failed to quarantine the seeds as required, failing to exercise due diligence, and objectively facilitated subsequent sales—thus bearing corresponding liability.
Judgment: Ningxia Hongmou Seed Company bears primary liability, paying economic damages of RMB 500,000 (approx. US$ 72,200) and reasonable expenses of RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,200); Ningxia Nannan Agriculture Company and others jointly and severally liable within certain amounts.
Typical Case 5: “Pura A280” Apple New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Ai Company v. Ming Company; Second Instance, SPC (2023) Final Civil Judgment No. 1542 in Intellectual Property – Illegally obtaining reproductive material of a protected variety before the application date and planting or propagating it does not give rise to a prior right that can defeat the variety right; variety identification certificates are not civil rights instruments.
Ai Company was the exclusive sub-licensee of the new apple variety “Pura A280” with authorization from the variety right holder to enforce the right. Ai Company collected branches of “Longwei” apples from an orchard planted by Ming Company. Testing showed that the collected samples were suspected to be identical to “Pura A280”. Ming Company argued that the “Longwei” it planted was actually “Yunyin Apple No. 2”, developed by a horticultural research institute, which had obtained a Variety Identification Certificate and pre-dated the application for “Pura A280”, thus its planting did not constitute infringement. The first instance court accepted this argument, treating the Variety Identification Certificate as a rights instrument, and dismissed all claims.
On second instance, the SPC held that the evidence sufficiently established that “Longwei” was identical to “Pura A280”. Apples are asexually reproducing woody plants. Ming Company’s large-scale commercial planting of the accused saplings constituted the act of producing and propagating reproductive material of a protected variety. “Yunyin Apple No. 2” had been developed by the horticultural research institute after it had been permitted to trial-plant “Pura A280” by a related party of Ai Company, but then disclosed and propagated it in breach of confidentiality obligations and obtained a variety identification certificate. The source of the reproductive material was therefore unlawful. Yunnan Province’s non-major crop variety identification system is an administrative measure; a Variety Identification Certificate is not a civil rights instrument and cannot defeat a lawful new plant variety right. Ming Company, as the producer and propagator, directly produced and propagated reproductive material of a protected variety and did not satisfy the requirements for a lawful source defense.
Judgment: Cease infringement; Ming Company pay economic damages and reasonable enforcement costs totaling RMB 538,750 (approx. US$ 77,800); pay ongoing variety right usage fees of RMB 8 per plant per year (approx. US$ 1.16 per plant per year).
Typical Case 6: “Qihuang 34” Soybean New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Sheng Company v. Mou Xin Company and Kong Mou Chuan; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Civil Judgment No. 199 in Intellectual Property – Selling seeds in the name of a company within its business premises constitutes joint infringement; selling “white bag” seeds with large-scale storage constitutes egregious circumstances warranting punitive damages; infringement profits may be calculated by deducting commodity grain prices from infringing seed prices with appropriate upward adjustment.
Sheng Company was the exclusive licensee of the soybean new plant variety “Qihuang 34”. Sheng Company purchased 100 kg of soybean seeds labelled “Qihuang 34” from Kong Mou Chuan in a warehouse located on the premises of Mou Xin Company. Testing confirmed the seeds were identical to “Qihuang 34”. Mou Xin Company argued that the seeds were stored and sold by Kong Mou Chuan personally and unrelated to the company. The first instance court found Kong Mou Chuan liable but not Mou Xin Company.
On second instance, the SPC held that the transaction occurred on Mou Xin Company’s premises, and Kong Mou Gen, the then legal representative of Mou Xin Company, together with Kong Mou Chuan, received the purchaser, introduced the variety, and completed the transaction. Kong Mou Gen’s conduct was acting on behalf of Mou Xin Company. Mou Xin Company and Kong Mou Chuan therefore formed joint intent and coordinated action, constituting joint liability. Mou Xin Company, a professional seed enterprise, knowingly participated in the sale without authorization for “Qihuang 34”; Kong Mou Chuan sold infringing seeds without any relevant qualifications; both demonstrated clear willful intent. Selling unlabeled, untraceable “white bag” seeds with large-scale storage constituted egregious circumstances, warranting double punitive damages. The profit from the infringing seeds was calculated based on the price difference between the infringing seeds and commodity soybeans, with reference to warehouse storage capacity to determine total sales volume, resulting in infringement profits of RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 28,900).
Judgment: Mou Xin Company and Kong Mou Chuan cease infringement; jointly and severally liable for economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 412,000 (approx. US$ 59,500).
Typical Case 7: “WG646” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Wu Company v. Heyuan Company; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 763 in Intellectual Property – Where the variety right holder produces evidence that the accused variety shares substantially the same characteristics as the protected variety, a preliminary finding of identity may be made; where the alleged infringer merely argues that the accused variety is a different protected variety, such defense is generally not accepted; non-standard locus expansion testing lacks probative value.
Wu Company held the new plant variety right for “WG646” corn. Heyuan Company, without authorization, used “WG646” to illegally propagate corn seeds in Gansu Province covering an area of over 33.3 hectares. Upon application, the first instance court preserved evidence and conducted authenticity testing of the preserved accused seeds against “WG646”, using 40 core loci, with one locus difference, concluding they were similar. Heyuan Company argued that the seeds it used were “HJ8702”, a different variety. Heyuan Company also applied for evidence preservation and conducted expansion locus testing on the preserved samples against “WG646”, using 2 loci, with 2 locus differences; it also conducted authenticity testing of the preserved samples against “HJ8702” using 40 core loci, with 0 locus differences, concluding they were extremely similar or identical. The first instance court found no infringement based on the 3 locus differences.
On second instance, the SPC held that where the variety right holder produces evidence that the accused variety shares substantially the same characteristics as the protected variety, a preliminary finding of identity may be made; the alleged infringer claiming they are different varieties must provide rebuttal evidence. Whether the accused variety is another protected variety is generally not directly relevant to the infringement determination. Wu Company’s test report, based on 40 core loci with one locus difference, sufficed to conclude the accused variety was “similar” to “WG646”. The loci selected by Heyuan Company for its expansion locus testing were not among the 40 core loci prescribed by the SSR marker method for corn variety identification, constituting arbitrarily selected non-standard loci that did not comply with the standards and norms for expansion locus testing. The expansion testing report therefore lacked probative value.
Judgment: Heyuan Company cease infringement; pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 1.03 million (approx. US$ 148,800).
Typical Case 8: “Tianshihong” Pomegranate New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Fruit Tree Research Institute v. Cheng Business Department, Li Mou Cheng, and Taomou Company; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 925 in Intellectual Property – Propagation conduct may be inferred from evidence of propagation capacity and admissions; for asexually reproduced varieties, the court may order “sterilization” to eliminate all regenerative capacity; a sole proprietorship investor bears supplemental liability.
The Fruit Tree Research Institute held the new plant variety right for “Tianshihong” pomegranate. Cheng Business Department, without authorization, sold “Tianshihong” labelled pomegranate saplings on Taomou Company’s platform under the store “Shandong Qingmou Fruit Tree Farmer’s Store”. Cheng Business Department was a sole proprietorship invested by Li Mou Cheng. Its store page displayed photos of propagation bases and claimed “base direct sales”, while customer service stated the saplings came from “our own orchard”. It could not prove the lawful source of the saplings. The first instance court found only a sale of infringing seeds and ordered cessation of sales with damages of RMB 10,000 (approx. US$ 1,400).
On second instance, the SPC held that Cheng Business Department’s display of propagation base photos, customer service’s admission that the saplings came from “our own orchard”, combined with its failure to prove lawful source and its capacity as a professional seedling operator with propagation qualifications, sufficed to establish that it had produced and propagated the infringing saplings. As “Tianshihong” is an asexually reproduced variety, merely stopping sales is insufficient to prevent further dissemination. The court ordered sterilization of the infringing saplings, with measures tailored to the growth stage. Based on the annual license fee of RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,200) derived from the evidence, and considering the circumstances of the infringement, the value of the variety, and reasonable enforcement costs, the damages were set at three times the license fee.
Judgment: Cease production, propagation, and sale of “Tianshihong” pomegranate reproductive material; sterilize infringing saplings within 15 days; Cheng Business Department pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 150,000 (approx. US$ 21,700); Li Mou Cheng, as the sole proprietor investor, to the extent that Cheng Business Department’s assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, shall supplement with personal assets.
Typical Case 9: “WH818” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement Case, Heng Company v. Bo Company; First Instance, Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court (2022) Civil First Instance No. 40 in Intellectual Property; Second Instance, SPC (2024) Final Civil Judgment No. 194 in Intellectual Property – The court held that the defendant’s use of its own registered trademark on the accused variety supports an inference that it is the producer; combined with the parent-child relationship test results and the defendant’s failure to disclose the parent source, the court found infringement, thereby reducing the burden of proof on the holder of the parent variety right.
Heng Company was one of the holders of the new plant variety right for “WH818” corn and was authorized by the other holder to enforce the right. Bo Company, a company qualified for corn production and operation, had registered the “Bohong” and “Weifeng” trademarks. The “Bohong Caitiannuo” and “Weifeng Caitiannuo” varieties produced and sold by Bo Company were hybrid varieties using “WH818” as a parent. During the first instance proceedings, Heng Company applied for parent-child relationship testing. Testing showed that both “Bohong Caitiannuo” and “Weifeng Caitiannuo” had a suspected parent-child relationship with “WH818”. Bo Company denied the test results but did not provide information on the parent seeds used to produce the accused varieties.
The first instance court held that Bo Company, having used its own registered trademarks on the accused varieties and noted its company name on the packaging, was presumed to be the producer of the accused varieties absent adequate explanation of their source. Combined with Bo Company’s failure to prove the source of the parent seeds, the court found that Bo Company had produced and sold the accused seeds using “WH818” without authorization, constituting infringement.
Judgment: Bo Company cease infringement; pay economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 28,900). Bo Company appealed; the SPC second instance judgment affirmed.
Typical Case 10: “R900” Rice New Plant Variety Administrative Penalty Case, Ke Company v. Ninghua County People’s Government and Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau; First Instance, Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Fujian Province (2024) Administrative First Instance No. 110; Second Instance, SPC (2025) Final Administrative Judgment No. 195 in Intellectual Property – A civil settlement does not preclude an administrative penalty based on public interest; administrative penalties must consider factors including the scale of infringement, the degree of disruption to seed industry order, and the potential impact on national agricultural seed security.
Yuan Company held the new plant variety right for “R900” rice and had not authorized Ke Company to use the variety. In 2021, Ke Company contracted for the production of “Keliangyou 9218” rice seeds in Ninghua County, Fujian Province. The male parent was suspected to infringe the “R900” variety right. Following a complaint by Yuan Company, the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau investigated and found that Ke Company had contracted for seed production covering 24.7 hectares in June 2021, and seized 75,800 kg of infringing seeds. Both SSR marker testing and field planting comparison confirmed that the male parent of the seeds was extremely similar or identical to “R900”. In November 2021, Ke Company and Yuan Company entered into a settlement agreement under which Ke Company admitted infringement and paid RMB 2.8 million (approx. US$ 404,400) in compensation, and Yuan Company issued a letter of understanding. In March 2024, the Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau imposed an administrative penalty of RMB 18.192 million (approx. US$ 2.628 million) on Ke Company. Ke Company’s administrative reconsideration was upheld, and it filed suit seeking annulment of the penalty and reconsideration decisions, arguing lack of intent, the existing civil settlement, and procedural violations. The first instance court upheld the penalty decisions and dismissed Ke Company’s claims.
On second instance, the SPC held that whether an infringement harms the public interest must be assessed by considering factors such as the scale of the unauthorized seed production, the degree of disruption to seed industry production and business order, and the potential impact on national agricultural seed security. Ke Company, without the variety right holder’s authorization, contracted for production of hybrid rice seeds using “R900” as the male parent, infringing the “R900” variety right. This was established by two rounds of testing and Ke Company’s admission in the settlement agreement. The scale of production was substantial, and the conduct harmed public interests including the order of the seed industry market, thus satisfying the conditions for administrative penalties under the Seed Law. Administrative and civil liabilities are distinct categories of legal responsibility. Although Ke Company and Yuan Company reached a civil settlement, the assumption of civil liability does not automatically exempt or substitute for administrative liability. The Ninghua County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, taking into account the circumstances of the violation and mitigating factors, applied the lower bound of the statutory penalty calculation method—a five-times penalty—which complied with the principle of proportionality between penalty and offence.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed; first instance judgment affirmed (administrative penalty upheld).
Conclusion
Through unifying adjudicative standards, clarifying previously ambiguous practices, and raising evidentiary thresholds and damages awards, the sixth batch of typical cases demonstrate the latest judicial approach to IP protection in China’s seed industry: determining infringement under stricter standards, allocating liability through more refined rules, and awarding damages with greater severity. These cases establish far-reaching adjudicative rules across several areas—from the determination of infringement in import scenarios, to the assumption of liability for storage activities, to the risk of administrative penalties even after civil settlements.