China’s Supreme Court Publishes Typical PVR Cases - Clarifying Technical Fact-Finding
Published 10 June 2026
Yu Du
On 9 June 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Guidelines for Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of Plant Variety Rights Cases by the People’s Courts (for our related article, please click here). Together with the Guidelines, the SPC also published three typical cases.
These cases focus on practical issues such as the relationship between molecular marker testing and field observation testing, the selection of control samples, substantive review of the evidentiary value of testing reports, when court-commissioned appraisal should be initiated if a party’s self-commissioned report cannot be accepted, and how courts should assess testimony from testing personnel. They provide useful guidance for understanding how the Guidelines may operate in real disputes.
Case 1: The “Xiangxue” Gardenia PVR Infringement - Related provisions of the Guidelines: Articles 10, 11, 12, 19 and 24
Facts:
The right holder of the gardenia variety “Xiangxue” alleged that the defendants sold an infringing variety named “Wujinxue” on several e-commerce platforms. The right holder purchased the accused plants through notarised evidence preservation, sealed the samples, and sent them for testing.
The testing institution applied the national standard for MNP marker-based plant variety identification by reference. The report compared 46,131 loci, found only 44 different loci, and concluded that the accused variety and the protected variety were extremely similar or identical, with a genetic similarity of 99.9%.
The defendants challenged the report, arguing that the institution lacked specific qualification for gardenia testing and that DUS testing, rather than molecular marker testing, should have been used. The first-instance court rejected the report and dismissed the claims.
SPC Ruling:
The SPC reversed the first-instance judgment. It held that:
1) the control sample could be accepted because it came from the mother plant recorded in the substantive examination process and the sampling and sealing process was notarised;2) molecular marker testing and field observation testing are parallel methods, and DUS testing is not mandatory or automatically superior;3) although there was no specific molecular marker standard for gardenia, the national MNP standard could be used by reference;4) the key issue was whether the testing institution had the relevant technical capability, not whether it held a formal qualification for that particular species.
The SPC found that the report had evidentiary value and could initially prove varietal identity. Since the defendants failed to rebut this evidence, the SPC held that they had infringed and ordered joint compensation of more than RMB 330,000.
Significance:
This case is important because it confirms that molecular marker testing and DUS testing are both available methods for determining varietal identity. It also clarifies that where no directly applicable standard exists, a relevant national standard may be used by reference if scientifically appropriate. For testing reports, courts should focus on the scientific reliability of the method, the representativeness and number of markers, and the technical competence of the testing institution, rather than relying only on formal qualification labels.
Case 2: The “Bainong 207” Wheat PVR Infringement - Related provision of the Guidelines: Article 25
Facts:
The licensee of the wheat variety “Bainong 207” purchased accused seeds sold under the name “Yangguang 818”. The packaging and traceability information indicated that the producer was a seed company. The plaintiff relied on a self-commissioned testing report to prove that the accused seeds and “Bainong 207” were the same variety.
The first-instance court found that the control sample in the report lacked a sample number and that its source was unclear. It therefore rejected the report and dismissed the claim.
SPC Ruling:
In the second instance, the SPC found that the accused seeds had been purchased through notarisation, remained properly sealed, and were still suitable for appraisal. The SPC therefore initiated a court-commissioned appraisal.
The Beijing Wheat Seed Testing Center conducted germination testing and then used SSR molecular marker testing under the applicable national standard. The appraisal concluded that the accused seeds and the standard sample of “Bainong 207” were the same variety.
The SPC reversed the first-instance judgment and ordered the producer and seller to stop infringement. The producer was ordered to pay RMB 300,000 in damages and reasonable expenses, while the seller bore joint liability within RMB 50,000.
Significance:
This case clarifies that where a party’s self-commissioned testing report is unreliable because the sample source is unclear or lacks connection with the official standard sample, the court should generally explain the issue to the party. If the party applies for court-commissioned appraisal and the sample remains suitable for testing, the court should allow the appraisal.
The case also reminds PVR holders that they must preserve accused samples carefully. For seeds, storage conditions such as temperature and humidity may directly affect seed viability and therefore the ability to complete later appraisal.
Case 3: The “Anthurium Andraeanum ‘Anzu Auliel’” PVR Infringement -Related provisions of the Guidelines: Articles 19, 23 and 24
Facts:
The right holder and its Chinese licensee alleged infringement of a protected anthurium variety. They purchased the accused plants through notarisation and sent samples for both DNA testing and DUS testing.
The DNA report found that the accused plants and the protected variety had identical genetic fingerprints at 29 selected loci. However, the DUS report found differences in 12 out of 40 basic characteristics.
At trial, the court questioned the testing personnel. The DNA testing expert stated that the 29 primers were selected from research based on only 10 anthurium varieties and were not linked to major traits. The DUS testing expert stated that the observed differences might be caused by both genetic and environmental factors, and that the relative influence of those factors was difficult to distinguish.
SPC Ruling:
The SPC upheld the dismissal of the claims. It held that, for varieties without a national or industry standard for molecular marker testing, courts must carefully examine whether the selected primers are based on a sufficiently representative sample range and whether the fingerprinting system is scientifically capable of distinguishing varieties.
In this case, the DNA fingerprinting system was based on only 10 varieties, which was insufficient. The DNA report therefore lacked sufficient evidentiary weight. At the same time, the DUS report showed clear differences between the two samples, and the plaintiff failed to prove that those differences were caused only by environmental or other non-genetic factors. The plaintiff therefore bore the adverse consequence of failure to prove infringement.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that molecular testing reports are not automatically accepted merely because they show genetic consistency. Courts will examine the scientific basis of the testing system, including the sample range, primer selection, and whether the method can reliably distinguish different varieties. The case also shows the importance of questioning testing personnel in court, especially where different testing methods lead to conflicting or uncertain results.
Comment
The SPC’s release of these typical cases confirms a more flexible and technology-neutral approach to technical fact-finding. Molecular marker testing is not subordinate to DUS testing. Where the method is scientifically reliable and the evidence chain is clear, molecular testing may play a decisive role. These cases also show that courts will conduct a substantive review of testing reports, focusing on scientific reliability, sample source, testing capability, marker selection, and whether the method can truly support varietal identity. Further, the cases highlight the importance of evidence preservation. Rights holders should pay close attention to notarised purchase, sample sealing, sample storage, and the source of control samples. In seed cases, maintaining seed viability may be critical.
These cases focus on practical issues such as the relationship between molecular marker testing and field observation testing, the selection of control samples, substantive review of the evidentiary value of testing reports, when court-commissioned appraisal should be initiated if a party’s self-commissioned report cannot be accepted, and how courts should assess testimony from testing personnel. They provide useful guidance for understanding how the Guidelines may operate in real disputes.
Case 1: The “Xiangxue” Gardenia PVR Infringement - Related provisions of the Guidelines: Articles 10, 11, 12, 19 and 24
Facts:
The right holder of the gardenia variety “Xiangxue” alleged that the defendants sold an infringing variety named “Wujinxue” on several e-commerce platforms. The right holder purchased the accused plants through notarised evidence preservation, sealed the samples, and sent them for testing.
The testing institution applied the national standard for MNP marker-based plant variety identification by reference. The report compared 46,131 loci, found only 44 different loci, and concluded that the accused variety and the protected variety were extremely similar or identical, with a genetic similarity of 99.9%.
The defendants challenged the report, arguing that the institution lacked specific qualification for gardenia testing and that DUS testing, rather than molecular marker testing, should have been used. The first-instance court rejected the report and dismissed the claims.
SPC Ruling:
The SPC reversed the first-instance judgment. It held that:
1) the control sample could be accepted because it came from the mother plant recorded in the substantive examination process and the sampling and sealing process was notarised;2) molecular marker testing and field observation testing are parallel methods, and DUS testing is not mandatory or automatically superior;3) although there was no specific molecular marker standard for gardenia, the national MNP standard could be used by reference;4) the key issue was whether the testing institution had the relevant technical capability, not whether it held a formal qualification for that particular species.
The SPC found that the report had evidentiary value and could initially prove varietal identity. Since the defendants failed to rebut this evidence, the SPC held that they had infringed and ordered joint compensation of more than RMB 330,000.
Significance:
This case is important because it confirms that molecular marker testing and DUS testing are both available methods for determining varietal identity. It also clarifies that where no directly applicable standard exists, a relevant national standard may be used by reference if scientifically appropriate. For testing reports, courts should focus on the scientific reliability of the method, the representativeness and number of markers, and the technical competence of the testing institution, rather than relying only on formal qualification labels.
Case 2: The “Bainong 207” Wheat PVR Infringement - Related provision of the Guidelines: Article 25
Facts:
The licensee of the wheat variety “Bainong 207” purchased accused seeds sold under the name “Yangguang 818”. The packaging and traceability information indicated that the producer was a seed company. The plaintiff relied on a self-commissioned testing report to prove that the accused seeds and “Bainong 207” were the same variety.
The first-instance court found that the control sample in the report lacked a sample number and that its source was unclear. It therefore rejected the report and dismissed the claim.
SPC Ruling:
In the second instance, the SPC found that the accused seeds had been purchased through notarisation, remained properly sealed, and were still suitable for appraisal. The SPC therefore initiated a court-commissioned appraisal.
The Beijing Wheat Seed Testing Center conducted germination testing and then used SSR molecular marker testing under the applicable national standard. The appraisal concluded that the accused seeds and the standard sample of “Bainong 207” were the same variety.
The SPC reversed the first-instance judgment and ordered the producer and seller to stop infringement. The producer was ordered to pay RMB 300,000 in damages and reasonable expenses, while the seller bore joint liability within RMB 50,000.
Significance:
This case clarifies that where a party’s self-commissioned testing report is unreliable because the sample source is unclear or lacks connection with the official standard sample, the court should generally explain the issue to the party. If the party applies for court-commissioned appraisal and the sample remains suitable for testing, the court should allow the appraisal.
The case also reminds PVR holders that they must preserve accused samples carefully. For seeds, storage conditions such as temperature and humidity may directly affect seed viability and therefore the ability to complete later appraisal.
Case 3: The “Anthurium Andraeanum ‘Anzu Auliel’” PVR Infringement -Related provisions of the Guidelines: Articles 19, 23 and 24
Facts:
The right holder and its Chinese licensee alleged infringement of a protected anthurium variety. They purchased the accused plants through notarisation and sent samples for both DNA testing and DUS testing.
The DNA report found that the accused plants and the protected variety had identical genetic fingerprints at 29 selected loci. However, the DUS report found differences in 12 out of 40 basic characteristics.
At trial, the court questioned the testing personnel. The DNA testing expert stated that the 29 primers were selected from research based on only 10 anthurium varieties and were not linked to major traits. The DUS testing expert stated that the observed differences might be caused by both genetic and environmental factors, and that the relative influence of those factors was difficult to distinguish.
SPC Ruling:
The SPC upheld the dismissal of the claims. It held that, for varieties without a national or industry standard for molecular marker testing, courts must carefully examine whether the selected primers are based on a sufficiently representative sample range and whether the fingerprinting system is scientifically capable of distinguishing varieties.
In this case, the DNA fingerprinting system was based on only 10 varieties, which was insufficient. The DNA report therefore lacked sufficient evidentiary weight. At the same time, the DUS report showed clear differences between the two samples, and the plaintiff failed to prove that those differences were caused only by environmental or other non-genetic factors. The plaintiff therefore bore the adverse consequence of failure to prove infringement.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that molecular testing reports are not automatically accepted merely because they show genetic consistency. Courts will examine the scientific basis of the testing system, including the sample range, primer selection, and whether the method can reliably distinguish different varieties. The case also shows the importance of questioning testing personnel in court, especially where different testing methods lead to conflicting or uncertain results.
Comment
The SPC’s release of these typical cases confirms a more flexible and technology-neutral approach to technical fact-finding. Molecular marker testing is not subordinate to DUS testing. Where the method is scientifically reliable and the evidence chain is clear, molecular testing may play a decisive role. These cases also show that courts will conduct a substantive review of testing reports, focusing on scientific reliability, sample source, testing capability, marker selection, and whether the method can truly support varietal identity. Further, the cases highlight the importance of evidence preservation. Rights holders should pay close attention to notarised purchase, sample sealing, sample storage, and the source of control samples. In seed cases, maintaining seed viability may be critical.