China’s Top Court Signals Tougher Stance on Plant Breeders’ Rights with New Model Cases
Published 16 October 2026
Xia Yu
On 14 October 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) released five typical cases on plant variety protection in a single batch during National Food Security Publicity Week, ahead of World Food Day. Covering rice, wheat, corn, passion fruit, and blueberry varieties, the batch includes two cases in which punitive damages were applied and two in which the damages claimed by the variety right holder were upheld in full.
The release of this batch marks the continued tightening of judicial protection for plant variety rights (“PVRs”) in China. Since the 2021 amendment to the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China introduced the essentially derived variety (EDV) regime and a statutory basis for punitive damages for intentional and serious infringement, the SPC has been steadily unifying adjudication standards for PVR disputes through successive batches of typical cases. The five judgments directly address the seed industry’s most intractable infringement problems: counterfeit seed sold under the name of another variety, evasion of liability through entity substitution, and the difficulty of proving the scale of propagation. Typical Case 2 in particular adopts “equal protection of Chinese and foreign breeders” as its guiding theme, echoing the national treatment principle of the UPOV Convention. Foreign breeders should take particular note that China operates a dual-track system in which plant variety rights and variety examination and approval run in parallel; Typical Case 3 confirms that the approval of a later-bred variety cannot be asserted against a prior plant variety right.
Typical Case 1: “Qinguo No. 9” Passion Fruit – Provisional Protection Period Royalties and PVR Infringement (SPC, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 169) – This case confirms that where, during the provisional protection period of a variety right, a person propagates or sells propagating material of the protected variety without authorization, the right holder is entitled to claim royalties for the provisional protection period; and that the scale of infringement may reasonably be determined on the basis of the infringer’s own publicized information, such as nursery base size and order volume. In light of the biological characteristic of asexually propagated crops — that retained seedlings can be propagated indefinitely — the case also establishes an adjudication rule requiring the deactivation of infringing seedlings.
“Qinguo No. 9” is a passion fruit variety co-owned by an academy of agricultural sciences and Qinmou Co., which was authorized to enforce the right in its own name. During the application stage the variety bore the name “Qinmi No. 9”; after a third party registered the trademark “Qinmi” in Class 31 and raised a name objection, the variety was renamed “Qinguo No. 9” with the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Huanmou Co., a single-member company incorporated by a Mr. Liang, propagated infringing seedlings on a commercial scale without authorization during the provisional protection period and marketed them under the name “Qinmi No. 9” through online platforms and offline channels. Notarized sampling and MNP (multiple nucleotide polymorphism) molecular identification confirmed that the accused seedlings were identical to the protected variety. Huanmou argued in defense that the variety had been promoted under a government industry program such that the right holder had granted an implied free license; that the “Qinmi” trademark had been registered by a third party; and it denied large-scale production and sales.
The court of first instance ordered Huanmou to pay royalties and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 600,000 (approx. US$ 89,640), with Mr. Liang, the sole shareholder, jointly and severally liable, but declined to order cessation of the infringement or destruction of the seedlings. On appeal, the SPC held that, taking into account the nursery base size, signed orders, and promotional statements publicized by Huanmou, the right holder’s claimed figure of two million infringing seedlings was reasonable; using as the benchmark the royalty of RMB 3.8 (approx. US$ 0.57) per plant charged by the right holder for “Qinguo No. 9” seedlings, the SPC upheld in full the provisional protection period royalties of RMB 7.6 million (approx. US$ 1,135,440) plus reasonable enforcement expenses of over RMB 7,000 (approx. US$ 1,046), with Mr. Liang jointly and severally liable. The appellate judgment drew two boundary lines: first, a trademark right cannot serve as a lawful basis for propagating and selling seedlings of a protected variety bearing the same name; second, a right holder’s cooperation with a government industry-promotion program does not in itself constitute an implied license in the legal sense. Because Huanmou continued its promotional activities after the variety was granted, the infringement was found to be ongoing and cessation was ordered; and, given the biological characteristics of asexual propagation in passion fruit, the court ordered the infringing seedlings to be deactivated by uprooting, deep burial, or physical shredding.
Typical Case 2: “Plablue1542” Blueberry PVR Infringement (Kunming Intermediate People’s Court, (2025) Yun 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 1; SPC, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 469) – This case refines the judicial standard for finding that a party is “engaged in infringement as a business”. Combining the facts that the infringer commenced infringing activities immediately upon its establishment and that the majority of the nursery stock it produced and propagated consisted of varieties without lawful authorization, the courts found the infringer to be engaged in infringement as a business and applied punitive damages.
The PVR holder of the blueberry variety “Plablue1542” is a Spanish plant company; an agricultural company, the licensee of the variety in China, was authorized to enforce the right in its own name. The nursery base at issue was established on 18 July 2024; its sales staff promoted blueberry seedlings continuously on WeChat Moments from July that year and on Douyin from September. On 30 July, the agricultural company purchased the accused infringing blueberry seedlings through notarized evidence collection. The base held large quantities of blueberry seedlings; its sales staff referred to the accused variety on site as “Spanish 42”, stated that a single propagation batch totaled 120,000 seedlings — of which 20,000 were the accused variety — and that another blueberry variety accounted for half of the stock without any explanation of lawful sourcing, and admitted that “the cuttings were obtained through connections, quietly” and that “the No. 42 tissue-culture plantlets came from the company that does tissue culture for the agricultural company”. Testing confirmed that the accused seedlings were extremely similar or identical to the protected variety.
The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court found at first instance that the base, fully aware that it held no license, produced, propagated, sold, and offered for sale the accused seedlings, demonstrating infringement intent; as it had also produced another variety without authorization — accounting for half of its stock — it could be presumed that more than 67 percent of the blueberry seedlings it produced, propagated, and sold were not lawfully authorized, warranting a finding of “infringement of variety rights as a business”. Punitive damages were applied, and the court awarded economic losses of RMB 144,000 (approx. US$ 21,514) and reasonable expenses of RMB 10,000 (approx. US$ 1,494). The SPC affirmed on appeal, making clear that the base had obtained propagating material by unlawful means from its very inception and that the varieties produced without authorization accounted for the majority of its output — constituting “infringement as a business” and justifying punitive damages. The judgment characterizes the case as “a typical case in which the people’s courts equally protect the innovation achievements of Chinese and foreign breeders.”
Typical Case 3: “Zhongke 804” Rice PVR Infringement (SPC, (2026) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 106) – This case confirms that variety approval does not, in itself, preclude a finding of plant variety infringement. In fact-finding on infringement losses, where the infringer submitted no rebuttal evidence, the appellate court reasonably adopted the infringer’s own statement of cultivation scale made in a related case concerning infringement of the same variety — significantly easing the right holder’s burden of proof and accordingly increasing the damages award.
The rice variety “Zhongke 804” was applied for on 22 June 2016 and granted on 19 December 2019. A seed company, the exclusive licensee, purchased in January 2025, through notarized evidence collection, rice seeds labeled “Zhonglongjing 13” — produced and sold in 2024 by Hongmou Co. — from an agricultural supplies store; testing showed them to be extremely similar or identical to the protected variety. “Zhonglongjing 13” underwent testing over two growing cycles in 2021–2022 and passed national variety approval in 2023 — all later than the grant date of “Zhongke 804”. In a related lawsuit brought by the seed company against Hongmou over its 2023 seed production, Hongmou stated that its 2024 production of “Zhonglongjing 13” was “roughly several million jin” (1 jin = 0.5 kg).
The court of first instance found both defendants liable for infringement and ordered Hongmou to pay over RMB 100,000 (approx. US$ 14,940). On appeal, the SPC held that whether the accused variety has passed variety approval generally does not affect the infringement determination, and PVR infringement cannot be negated merely because a later-bred variety has been approved; as Hongmou failed to produce evidence rebutting its own statement in the related case, the quantity of infringing seed in this case could be found to be at least one million jin; deducting reasonable costs from its selling price to the agricultural supplies store, the infringing profit was calculated at RMB 1.4 (approx. US$ 0.21) per jin. The SPC accordingly modified the judgment, ordering Hongmou to pay economic losses of RMB 1.4 million (approx. US$ 209,160) and reasonable expenses of RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,470).
Typical Case 4: “Yuanke 105” Corn PVR Infringement (SPC, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 201) – This case confirms that where an actual controller deregisters an entity and establishes a new one in order to evade infringement liability, and the two entities are highly overlapping in timing, business premises, personnel, and business scope, the newly established entity bears liability for the infringement committed by the deregistered entity. It also clarifies the tiered application of punitive damages in joint infringement: the amount of punitive damages and the scope of joint and several liability are determined separately for each infringer according to subjective fault and the circumstances of the infringement, reconciling the severity of punitive damages with the principles of personal responsibility and proportionality.
The PVR holder of the corn hybrid “Yuanke 105” is a seed company. On 3 January 2024, testing commissioned by the right holder revealed that “Huake 605” seeds sold by Haimou Seedling Store were identical to the protected variety; the seeds were stored in the warehouse of the Huamou Farmers’ Cooperative, whose legal representative was a Mr. Zhao Moufeng. On 12 January, after receiving a complaint, the agricultural and rural affairs authority planned an on-site inspection; Mr. Zhao Moufeng and his wife Ms. Ji Mouhua refused to open the warehouse. On 22 January, Haimou Seedling Store was deregistered; on 23 January, Ms. Ji Mouhua registered Tianmou Seed Industry (an individually-owned business) at the same address; and in the early hours of 27 January, all of the seeds in the warehouse were removed.
The court of first instance declined to apply punitive damages, ordering Ms. Ji Mouhua, Mr. Zhao Moufeng, and the Huamou Farmers’ Cooperative to pay joint and several compensations of RMB 385,000 (approx. US$ 57,519), and Mr. Zhao Moujun to pay RMB 100,000 (approx. US$ 14,940). On appeal, the SPC found that Haimou Seedling Store and Tianmou Seed Industry exhibited continuity in time, overlap in premises, identity of personnel, and continuity of business; under the high probability standard, the latter was sufficiently found to be the natural continuation of the former’s operations, and a newly established entity must answer for the infringement of the deregistered one. Mr. Zhao Moujun was found to be a joint infringer with the other defendants. All infringers acted with intent and in serious circumstances, so punitive damages applied; but the degree of concerted intent differed among them — concerted intent existed among Tianmou Seed Industry (Haimou Seedling Store), Ms. Ji Mouhua, Mr. Zhao Moufeng, and the Huamou Farmers’ Cooperative, but not between Mr. Zhao Moujun and the others — so punitive damages were calculated separately, with joint and several liability attaching to the compensatory portion. The SPC modified the judgment as follows: the first four defendants were subject to treble punitive damages, jointly and severally liable for RMB 777,000 (approx. US$ 116,084), with Mr. Zhao Moujun jointly and severally liable for RMB 259,000 (approx. US$ 38,695) of that amount; Mr. Zhao Moujun was subject to double punitive damages, liable for RMB 384,800 (approx. US$ 57,489), with the first four defendants jointly and severally liable for RMB 192,400 (approx. US$ 28,745) of that amount; and all infringers were jointly and severally liable for reasonable enforcement expenses of RMB 85,000 (approx. US$ 12,699).
Typical Case 5: “Jimai 22” Wheat PVR Infringement (SPC, (2026) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 51) – Combining the planting rhythm and growth cycle of the specific variety, this case uses judicial experience-based inference to reasonably presume the time at which the infringing seed was produced and propagated, easing the variety right holder’s burden of proof. It also confirms that a producer of infringing seed commits PVR infringement even where it sells, after the protection period has expired, infringing seed produced without authorization during the protection period.
“Jimai 22” was granted on 1 May 2009 with a fifteen-year protection period. Company A, the exclusive licensee, purchased “Jimai 22” seeds produced by Company B through notarized evidence collection on 21 August 2024, after the protection period had expired. The court of first instance found that Company B had produced and propagated infringing seed during the protection period, constituting infringement, but — considering that the protection period had expired — awarded only RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,470). On appeal, the SPC held that, given the planting cycle and growth pattern of “Jimai 22”, the batch of seeds must have entered production no later than October 2023, as Company B could not otherwise have had seed available for sale only three months after the protection period expired. Company B had begun producing and propagating the accused seed during the protection period, and its post-expiry sales were a natural continuation of that production and propagation, likewise constituting PVR infringement; the profits from the sales stage were to be taken into account in determining damages. The court determined the quantity of infringing seed by reference to the production quantity stipulated in Company B’s seed-production agreement with a third party, and set reasonable profits at the difference between the seed sale price and that year’s state minimum grain purchase price, with an appropriate upward adjustment; the resulting infringing profits exceeded the RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 29,880) claimed by Company A on appeal, which was therefore upheld in full.
Conclusion
The release of these five typical cases shows that judicial protection of PVRs in China is shifting from “whether relief exists” to “whether relief is adequate and effective”. For breeders, the threshold for applying punitive damages, the rules on successor liability for reincorporated entities, and the evidentiary rules on the scale of infringement have all been refined, significantly enhancing the predictability of enforcement. For foreign breeders, the implementation of equal protection in individual cases — and the clarification of the dual-track misconception that variety approval does not confer a variety right — undoubtedly reduces institutional uncertainty when entering the Chinese market. For right holders, the most pragmatic steps now are to strengthen written documentation of variety right portfolios and licensing chains, monitor the circulation of propagating material, and, when infringement occurs, make full use of the burden-shifting and presumption rules established in this batch of cases, converting adjudicatory gains into tangible enforcement results.
The release of this batch marks the continued tightening of judicial protection for plant variety rights (“PVRs”) in China. Since the 2021 amendment to the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China introduced the essentially derived variety (EDV) regime and a statutory basis for punitive damages for intentional and serious infringement, the SPC has been steadily unifying adjudication standards for PVR disputes through successive batches of typical cases. The five judgments directly address the seed industry’s most intractable infringement problems: counterfeit seed sold under the name of another variety, evasion of liability through entity substitution, and the difficulty of proving the scale of propagation. Typical Case 2 in particular adopts “equal protection of Chinese and foreign breeders” as its guiding theme, echoing the national treatment principle of the UPOV Convention. Foreign breeders should take particular note that China operates a dual-track system in which plant variety rights and variety examination and approval run in parallel; Typical Case 3 confirms that the approval of a later-bred variety cannot be asserted against a prior plant variety right.
Typical Case 1: “Qinguo No. 9” Passion Fruit – Provisional Protection Period Royalties and PVR Infringement (SPC, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 169) – This case confirms that where, during the provisional protection period of a variety right, a person propagates or sells propagating material of the protected variety without authorization, the right holder is entitled to claim royalties for the provisional protection period; and that the scale of infringement may reasonably be determined on the basis of the infringer’s own publicized information, such as nursery base size and order volume. In light of the biological characteristic of asexually propagated crops — that retained seedlings can be propagated indefinitely — the case also establishes an adjudication rule requiring the deactivation of infringing seedlings.
“Qinguo No. 9” is a passion fruit variety co-owned by an academy of agricultural sciences and Qinmou Co., which was authorized to enforce the right in its own name. During the application stage the variety bore the name “Qinmi No. 9”; after a third party registered the trademark “Qinmi” in Class 31 and raised a name objection, the variety was renamed “Qinguo No. 9” with the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Huanmou Co., a single-member company incorporated by a Mr. Liang, propagated infringing seedlings on a commercial scale without authorization during the provisional protection period and marketed them under the name “Qinmi No. 9” through online platforms and offline channels. Notarized sampling and MNP (multiple nucleotide polymorphism) molecular identification confirmed that the accused seedlings were identical to the protected variety. Huanmou argued in defense that the variety had been promoted under a government industry program such that the right holder had granted an implied free license; that the “Qinmi” trademark had been registered by a third party; and it denied large-scale production and sales.
The court of first instance ordered Huanmou to pay royalties and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 600,000 (approx. US$ 89,640), with Mr. Liang, the sole shareholder, jointly and severally liable, but declined to order cessation of the infringement or destruction of the seedlings. On appeal, the SPC held that, taking into account the nursery base size, signed orders, and promotional statements publicized by Huanmou, the right holder’s claimed figure of two million infringing seedlings was reasonable; using as the benchmark the royalty of RMB 3.8 (approx. US$ 0.57) per plant charged by the right holder for “Qinguo No. 9” seedlings, the SPC upheld in full the provisional protection period royalties of RMB 7.6 million (approx. US$ 1,135,440) plus reasonable enforcement expenses of over RMB 7,000 (approx. US$ 1,046), with Mr. Liang jointly and severally liable. The appellate judgment drew two boundary lines: first, a trademark right cannot serve as a lawful basis for propagating and selling seedlings of a protected variety bearing the same name; second, a right holder’s cooperation with a government industry-promotion program does not in itself constitute an implied license in the legal sense. Because Huanmou continued its promotional activities after the variety was granted, the infringement was found to be ongoing and cessation was ordered; and, given the biological characteristics of asexual propagation in passion fruit, the court ordered the infringing seedlings to be deactivated by uprooting, deep burial, or physical shredding.
Typical Case 2: “Plablue1542” Blueberry PVR Infringement (Kunming Intermediate People’s Court, (2025) Yun 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 1; SPC, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 469) – This case refines the judicial standard for finding that a party is “engaged in infringement as a business”. Combining the facts that the infringer commenced infringing activities immediately upon its establishment and that the majority of the nursery stock it produced and propagated consisted of varieties without lawful authorization, the courts found the infringer to be engaged in infringement as a business and applied punitive damages.
The PVR holder of the blueberry variety “Plablue1542” is a Spanish plant company; an agricultural company, the licensee of the variety in China, was authorized to enforce the right in its own name. The nursery base at issue was established on 18 July 2024; its sales staff promoted blueberry seedlings continuously on WeChat Moments from July that year and on Douyin from September. On 30 July, the agricultural company purchased the accused infringing blueberry seedlings through notarized evidence collection. The base held large quantities of blueberry seedlings; its sales staff referred to the accused variety on site as “Spanish 42”, stated that a single propagation batch totaled 120,000 seedlings — of which 20,000 were the accused variety — and that another blueberry variety accounted for half of the stock without any explanation of lawful sourcing, and admitted that “the cuttings were obtained through connections, quietly” and that “the No. 42 tissue-culture plantlets came from the company that does tissue culture for the agricultural company”. Testing confirmed that the accused seedlings were extremely similar or identical to the protected variety.
The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court found at first instance that the base, fully aware that it held no license, produced, propagated, sold, and offered for sale the accused seedlings, demonstrating infringement intent; as it had also produced another variety without authorization — accounting for half of its stock — it could be presumed that more than 67 percent of the blueberry seedlings it produced, propagated, and sold were not lawfully authorized, warranting a finding of “infringement of variety rights as a business”. Punitive damages were applied, and the court awarded economic losses of RMB 144,000 (approx. US$ 21,514) and reasonable expenses of RMB 10,000 (approx. US$ 1,494). The SPC affirmed on appeal, making clear that the base had obtained propagating material by unlawful means from its very inception and that the varieties produced without authorization accounted for the majority of its output — constituting “infringement as a business” and justifying punitive damages. The judgment characterizes the case as “a typical case in which the people’s courts equally protect the innovation achievements of Chinese and foreign breeders.”
Typical Case 3: “Zhongke 804” Rice PVR Infringement (SPC, (2026) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 106) – This case confirms that variety approval does not, in itself, preclude a finding of plant variety infringement. In fact-finding on infringement losses, where the infringer submitted no rebuttal evidence, the appellate court reasonably adopted the infringer’s own statement of cultivation scale made in a related case concerning infringement of the same variety — significantly easing the right holder’s burden of proof and accordingly increasing the damages award.
The rice variety “Zhongke 804” was applied for on 22 June 2016 and granted on 19 December 2019. A seed company, the exclusive licensee, purchased in January 2025, through notarized evidence collection, rice seeds labeled “Zhonglongjing 13” — produced and sold in 2024 by Hongmou Co. — from an agricultural supplies store; testing showed them to be extremely similar or identical to the protected variety. “Zhonglongjing 13” underwent testing over two growing cycles in 2021–2022 and passed national variety approval in 2023 — all later than the grant date of “Zhongke 804”. In a related lawsuit brought by the seed company against Hongmou over its 2023 seed production, Hongmou stated that its 2024 production of “Zhonglongjing 13” was “roughly several million jin” (1 jin = 0.5 kg).
The court of first instance found both defendants liable for infringement and ordered Hongmou to pay over RMB 100,000 (approx. US$ 14,940). On appeal, the SPC held that whether the accused variety has passed variety approval generally does not affect the infringement determination, and PVR infringement cannot be negated merely because a later-bred variety has been approved; as Hongmou failed to produce evidence rebutting its own statement in the related case, the quantity of infringing seed in this case could be found to be at least one million jin; deducting reasonable costs from its selling price to the agricultural supplies store, the infringing profit was calculated at RMB 1.4 (approx. US$ 0.21) per jin. The SPC accordingly modified the judgment, ordering Hongmou to pay economic losses of RMB 1.4 million (approx. US$ 209,160) and reasonable expenses of RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,470).
Typical Case 4: “Yuanke 105” Corn PVR Infringement (SPC, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 201) – This case confirms that where an actual controller deregisters an entity and establishes a new one in order to evade infringement liability, and the two entities are highly overlapping in timing, business premises, personnel, and business scope, the newly established entity bears liability for the infringement committed by the deregistered entity. It also clarifies the tiered application of punitive damages in joint infringement: the amount of punitive damages and the scope of joint and several liability are determined separately for each infringer according to subjective fault and the circumstances of the infringement, reconciling the severity of punitive damages with the principles of personal responsibility and proportionality.
The PVR holder of the corn hybrid “Yuanke 105” is a seed company. On 3 January 2024, testing commissioned by the right holder revealed that “Huake 605” seeds sold by Haimou Seedling Store were identical to the protected variety; the seeds were stored in the warehouse of the Huamou Farmers’ Cooperative, whose legal representative was a Mr. Zhao Moufeng. On 12 January, after receiving a complaint, the agricultural and rural affairs authority planned an on-site inspection; Mr. Zhao Moufeng and his wife Ms. Ji Mouhua refused to open the warehouse. On 22 January, Haimou Seedling Store was deregistered; on 23 January, Ms. Ji Mouhua registered Tianmou Seed Industry (an individually-owned business) at the same address; and in the early hours of 27 January, all of the seeds in the warehouse were removed.
The court of first instance declined to apply punitive damages, ordering Ms. Ji Mouhua, Mr. Zhao Moufeng, and the Huamou Farmers’ Cooperative to pay joint and several compensations of RMB 385,000 (approx. US$ 57,519), and Mr. Zhao Moujun to pay RMB 100,000 (approx. US$ 14,940). On appeal, the SPC found that Haimou Seedling Store and Tianmou Seed Industry exhibited continuity in time, overlap in premises, identity of personnel, and continuity of business; under the high probability standard, the latter was sufficiently found to be the natural continuation of the former’s operations, and a newly established entity must answer for the infringement of the deregistered one. Mr. Zhao Moujun was found to be a joint infringer with the other defendants. All infringers acted with intent and in serious circumstances, so punitive damages applied; but the degree of concerted intent differed among them — concerted intent existed among Tianmou Seed Industry (Haimou Seedling Store), Ms. Ji Mouhua, Mr. Zhao Moufeng, and the Huamou Farmers’ Cooperative, but not between Mr. Zhao Moujun and the others — so punitive damages were calculated separately, with joint and several liability attaching to the compensatory portion. The SPC modified the judgment as follows: the first four defendants were subject to treble punitive damages, jointly and severally liable for RMB 777,000 (approx. US$ 116,084), with Mr. Zhao Moujun jointly and severally liable for RMB 259,000 (approx. US$ 38,695) of that amount; Mr. Zhao Moujun was subject to double punitive damages, liable for RMB 384,800 (approx. US$ 57,489), with the first four defendants jointly and severally liable for RMB 192,400 (approx. US$ 28,745) of that amount; and all infringers were jointly and severally liable for reasonable enforcement expenses of RMB 85,000 (approx. US$ 12,699).
Typical Case 5: “Jimai 22” Wheat PVR Infringement (SPC, (2026) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 51) – Combining the planting rhythm and growth cycle of the specific variety, this case uses judicial experience-based inference to reasonably presume the time at which the infringing seed was produced and propagated, easing the variety right holder’s burden of proof. It also confirms that a producer of infringing seed commits PVR infringement even where it sells, after the protection period has expired, infringing seed produced without authorization during the protection period.
“Jimai 22” was granted on 1 May 2009 with a fifteen-year protection period. Company A, the exclusive licensee, purchased “Jimai 22” seeds produced by Company B through notarized evidence collection on 21 August 2024, after the protection period had expired. The court of first instance found that Company B had produced and propagated infringing seed during the protection period, constituting infringement, but — considering that the protection period had expired — awarded only RMB 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,470). On appeal, the SPC held that, given the planting cycle and growth pattern of “Jimai 22”, the batch of seeds must have entered production no later than October 2023, as Company B could not otherwise have had seed available for sale only three months after the protection period expired. Company B had begun producing and propagating the accused seed during the protection period, and its post-expiry sales were a natural continuation of that production and propagation, likewise constituting PVR infringement; the profits from the sales stage were to be taken into account in determining damages. The court determined the quantity of infringing seed by reference to the production quantity stipulated in Company B’s seed-production agreement with a third party, and set reasonable profits at the difference between the seed sale price and that year’s state minimum grain purchase price, with an appropriate upward adjustment; the resulting infringing profits exceeded the RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 29,880) claimed by Company A on appeal, which was therefore upheld in full.
Conclusion
The release of these five typical cases shows that judicial protection of PVRs in China is shifting from “whether relief exists” to “whether relief is adequate and effective”. For breeders, the threshold for applying punitive damages, the rules on successor liability for reincorporated entities, and the evidentiary rules on the scale of infringement have all been refined, significantly enhancing the predictability of enforcement. For foreign breeders, the implementation of equal protection in individual cases — and the clarification of the dual-track misconception that variety approval does not confer a variety right — undoubtedly reduces institutional uncertainty when entering the Chinese market. For right holders, the most pragmatic steps now are to strengthen written documentation of variety right portfolios and licensing chains, monitor the circulation of propagating material, and, when infringement occurs, make full use of the burden-shifting and presumption rules established in this batch of cases, converting adjudicatory gains into tangible enforcement results.