China’s Supreme Court Issues Guidelines on Technical Fact-Finding in Plant Variety Cases
Published 10 June 2026
Yu Du
On 9 June 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued the Guidelines on Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of Plant Variety Cases by People’s Courts (Guidelines).
The Guidelines are intended to further standardise how Chinese courts ascertain technical facts in civil and administrative disputes involving plant variety rights. They respond to the growing number of plant variety cases and the practical difficulty of determining technical issues such as variety identity, parentage and derivation. The SPC aims to improve the scientific accuracy, procedural consistency and efficiency of technical fact-finding, and to provide clearer standards for courts, parties and technical experts. The following are the main contents of the Guidelines.
Scope of Technical Facts
The Guidelines clarify that technical facts in plant variety cases mainly include variety identity, parentage, derivation, and other technical issues such as whether differences between the accused material and the protected variety are caused by non-genetic variation.
Technical fact-finding should follow the principles of scientific objectivity, procedural regularity, efficiency and convenience.
Multiple Fact-Finding Mechanisms
The Guidelines provide for multiple methods of technical fact-finding, including court-commissioned appraisal, expert opinions obtained by parties from professional institutions or individuals, testimony by persons with specialised knowledge, participation of technical investigation officers, expert lay assessors, and technical consultation.
Courts should organise cross-examination of appraisal opinions, expert opinions and statements made by persons with specialised knowledge, and determine their probative value after a comprehensive review.
Court-Commissioned Appraisal and Sample Requirements
A party may apply for appraisal on specialised technical issues such as variety identity, parentage and derivation. The court should examine whether the proposed appraisal is necessary and feasible. Appraisal should not be allowed where the fact can already be determined through logic, common experience or existing evidence, or where the proposed appraisal is irrelevant or has no meaningful probative value.
The party applying for appraisal should ensure that seeds, seedlings or other accused materials are clearly and genuinely sourced, linked to the alleged infringing act, and properly preserved or planted so that they meet appraisal requirements. The party should prove or sufficiently explain the source, fixation and preservation process of the accused material. Where necessary, field sampling videos or pre-stored gene fingerprints may be used to fix the status of the material. Notarisation is encouraged but not mandatory.
Appraisal Methods and Control Samples
The Guidelines recognise field observation tests and molecular marker tests as available appraisal methods. Molecular marker methods include SSR, SNP and MNP testing. For varieties without directly applicable national or industry standards, courts should examine the scientific reliability of the method used. Methods generally recognised in the relevant plant variety field or commonly used in the industry may be accepted.
In principle, the control sample should be the standard sample preserved by the competent variety administration authority. Where there are multiple official sources, priority should be given to the sample preserved by the authority that granted the plant variety right. If no standard or officially preserved sample is available, the rights holder may provide propagating material or a gene fingerprint of the protected variety, but must prove or sufficiently explain that it corresponds to the protected variety.
Review and Acceptance of Appraisal Opinions
When reviewing an appraisal opinion, the court should examine whether it is signed or sealed by the appraiser, sealed by the appraisal institution, and accompanied by proof of relevant qualifications or capabilities.
For molecular marker testing, the court should review information on the tested sample and control sample, the appraisal basis, method, main instruments, gene fingerprint comparison information and conclusion. For field observation testing, the court should review the experimental design, phenotypic test data and conclusion.
A molecular marker appraisal opinion made under applicable standards for variety identity should state the number of compared loci, the number of different loci and the test conclusion.
Identity Determination and Burden of Proof
Where molecular marker testing is used, core loci prescribed by national or industry standards should be used first. If core loci cannot effectively distinguish the varieties, expanded loci or specific loci may be used where necessary.
If the appraisal opinion records zero different loci, or concludes that the varieties are “extremely similar” or “identical”, the court should find that the accused material and the protected variety are identical.
Where the number of different loci is below but close to the critical threshold, the accused infringer bears the burden of proving that the accused material differs from the protected variety in its characteristics. The court may also make a comprehensive assessment based on additional testing of the standard sample, expanded-loci testing, breeding records and other relevant factors.
Parentage and Conflicting Test Results
A parentage appraisal opinion made by qualified appraisal institutions or appraisers by reference to variety identity standards may serve as preliminary evidence for determining whether the accused material was produced or propagated using the protected variety as a parent.
If the opinion finds “suspected parentage”, the court may preliminarily find that parentage exists. If the opinion finds “uncertain parentage”, the court may assess the issue together with other evidence. If the opinion finds “no parent-child relationship”, the court may preliminarily find that there is no parentage.
Where the conclusion of field observation testing differs from that of molecular marker testing such as gene fingerprinting, the field observation conclusion should prevail.
Party-Obtained Expert Opinions
For expert opinions obtained by parties from professional institutions or individuals, courts may review them by reference to the rules for appraisal opinions. The review should focus on the link between the tested sample and the alleged infringement, the source of the control sample, the qualifications of the institution and personnel, the testing method and procedure, the completeness of the report, and whether there is any conflict of interest or other circumstance affecting neutrality.
Courts should conduct a comprehensive and substantive review of such expert opinions. This review is not dependent on whether the opposing party raises an objection. If the institution or person issuing the expert opinion refuses to appear in court for questioning without justified reason after being notified by the court, the expert opinion may not be used as the basis for fact-finding, and the related costs may not be included as reasonable enforcement expenses in damages.
Expert Assistance, Technical Investigation and Technical Consultation
A party may apply for a person with specialised knowledge to appear in court to explain, challenge or confront technical issues such as technical terms, testing data, the scientific basis of methods, data authenticity and relevance of conclusions. The opinions of such persons are treated as statements of the party who applied for their appearance.
Technical investigation officers may provide opinions on issues such as the scientific basis of appraisal methods, the regularity of sample extraction and the reliability of appraisal conclusions. Their opinions are for the collegial panel’s reference only.
For difficult or complex technical issues, courts may consult judicial technical personnel, external professional institutions or technical experts, or convene expert consultation meetings. Such opinions are also for reference only, and the collegial panel remains responsible for the finding of technical facts.
Expert Lay Assessors and Supervision
For first-instance plant variety cases involving complex technical facts, courts may include lay assessors with relevant expertise in breeding or crop testing in the collegial panel. Such expert lay assessors should independently express opinions on technical fact-finding issues.
The Guidelines also set management requirements for appraisal institutions and appraisers. After accepting an entrustment, they should submit the appraisal plan, appraiser information and commitment letter within five working days. Where molecular marker testing is used, the appraisal opinion should generally be issued within 30 working days. For difficult or complex cases, the period should not exceed 60 working days, and any extension in special circumstances should generally not exceed 30 working days.
For appraisal beyond the permitted scope, false appraisal, unjustified delay or other misconduct, courts may terminate the entrustment, order the return of appraisal fees, issue judicial recommendations, or transfer suspected criminal conduct to the competent authority.
Comment
The Guidelines are the first SPC document dedicated to technical fact-finding in plant variety cases. Their main value lies in turning what has often been a case-by-case technical exercise into a more structured and predictable judicial process. For rights holders, the Guidelines may reduce uncertainty in enforcement by clarifying how courts should review samples, testing methods, appraisal opinions and expert evidence. For breeding companies, research institutions and seed industry participants, they signal that Chinese courts will take a more predictable and technically informed approach to plant variety right enforcement.
The Guidelines are intended to further standardise how Chinese courts ascertain technical facts in civil and administrative disputes involving plant variety rights. They respond to the growing number of plant variety cases and the practical difficulty of determining technical issues such as variety identity, parentage and derivation. The SPC aims to improve the scientific accuracy, procedural consistency and efficiency of technical fact-finding, and to provide clearer standards for courts, parties and technical experts. The following are the main contents of the Guidelines.
Scope of Technical Facts
The Guidelines clarify that technical facts in plant variety cases mainly include variety identity, parentage, derivation, and other technical issues such as whether differences between the accused material and the protected variety are caused by non-genetic variation.
Technical fact-finding should follow the principles of scientific objectivity, procedural regularity, efficiency and convenience.
Multiple Fact-Finding Mechanisms
The Guidelines provide for multiple methods of technical fact-finding, including court-commissioned appraisal, expert opinions obtained by parties from professional institutions or individuals, testimony by persons with specialised knowledge, participation of technical investigation officers, expert lay assessors, and technical consultation.
Courts should organise cross-examination of appraisal opinions, expert opinions and statements made by persons with specialised knowledge, and determine their probative value after a comprehensive review.
Court-Commissioned Appraisal and Sample Requirements
A party may apply for appraisal on specialised technical issues such as variety identity, parentage and derivation. The court should examine whether the proposed appraisal is necessary and feasible. Appraisal should not be allowed where the fact can already be determined through logic, common experience or existing evidence, or where the proposed appraisal is irrelevant or has no meaningful probative value.
The party applying for appraisal should ensure that seeds, seedlings or other accused materials are clearly and genuinely sourced, linked to the alleged infringing act, and properly preserved or planted so that they meet appraisal requirements. The party should prove or sufficiently explain the source, fixation and preservation process of the accused material. Where necessary, field sampling videos or pre-stored gene fingerprints may be used to fix the status of the material. Notarisation is encouraged but not mandatory.
Appraisal Methods and Control Samples
The Guidelines recognise field observation tests and molecular marker tests as available appraisal methods. Molecular marker methods include SSR, SNP and MNP testing. For varieties without directly applicable national or industry standards, courts should examine the scientific reliability of the method used. Methods generally recognised in the relevant plant variety field or commonly used in the industry may be accepted.
In principle, the control sample should be the standard sample preserved by the competent variety administration authority. Where there are multiple official sources, priority should be given to the sample preserved by the authority that granted the plant variety right. If no standard or officially preserved sample is available, the rights holder may provide propagating material or a gene fingerprint of the protected variety, but must prove or sufficiently explain that it corresponds to the protected variety.
Review and Acceptance of Appraisal Opinions
When reviewing an appraisal opinion, the court should examine whether it is signed or sealed by the appraiser, sealed by the appraisal institution, and accompanied by proof of relevant qualifications or capabilities.
For molecular marker testing, the court should review information on the tested sample and control sample, the appraisal basis, method, main instruments, gene fingerprint comparison information and conclusion. For field observation testing, the court should review the experimental design, phenotypic test data and conclusion.
A molecular marker appraisal opinion made under applicable standards for variety identity should state the number of compared loci, the number of different loci and the test conclusion.
Identity Determination and Burden of Proof
Where molecular marker testing is used, core loci prescribed by national or industry standards should be used first. If core loci cannot effectively distinguish the varieties, expanded loci or specific loci may be used where necessary.
If the appraisal opinion records zero different loci, or concludes that the varieties are “extremely similar” or “identical”, the court should find that the accused material and the protected variety are identical.
Where the number of different loci is below but close to the critical threshold, the accused infringer bears the burden of proving that the accused material differs from the protected variety in its characteristics. The court may also make a comprehensive assessment based on additional testing of the standard sample, expanded-loci testing, breeding records and other relevant factors.
Parentage and Conflicting Test Results
A parentage appraisal opinion made by qualified appraisal institutions or appraisers by reference to variety identity standards may serve as preliminary evidence for determining whether the accused material was produced or propagated using the protected variety as a parent.
If the opinion finds “suspected parentage”, the court may preliminarily find that parentage exists. If the opinion finds “uncertain parentage”, the court may assess the issue together with other evidence. If the opinion finds “no parent-child relationship”, the court may preliminarily find that there is no parentage.
Where the conclusion of field observation testing differs from that of molecular marker testing such as gene fingerprinting, the field observation conclusion should prevail.
Party-Obtained Expert Opinions
For expert opinions obtained by parties from professional institutions or individuals, courts may review them by reference to the rules for appraisal opinions. The review should focus on the link between the tested sample and the alleged infringement, the source of the control sample, the qualifications of the institution and personnel, the testing method and procedure, the completeness of the report, and whether there is any conflict of interest or other circumstance affecting neutrality.
Courts should conduct a comprehensive and substantive review of such expert opinions. This review is not dependent on whether the opposing party raises an objection. If the institution or person issuing the expert opinion refuses to appear in court for questioning without justified reason after being notified by the court, the expert opinion may not be used as the basis for fact-finding, and the related costs may not be included as reasonable enforcement expenses in damages.
Expert Assistance, Technical Investigation and Technical Consultation
A party may apply for a person with specialised knowledge to appear in court to explain, challenge or confront technical issues such as technical terms, testing data, the scientific basis of methods, data authenticity and relevance of conclusions. The opinions of such persons are treated as statements of the party who applied for their appearance.
Technical investigation officers may provide opinions on issues such as the scientific basis of appraisal methods, the regularity of sample extraction and the reliability of appraisal conclusions. Their opinions are for the collegial panel’s reference only.
For difficult or complex technical issues, courts may consult judicial technical personnel, external professional institutions or technical experts, or convene expert consultation meetings. Such opinions are also for reference only, and the collegial panel remains responsible for the finding of technical facts.
Expert Lay Assessors and Supervision
For first-instance plant variety cases involving complex technical facts, courts may include lay assessors with relevant expertise in breeding or crop testing in the collegial panel. Such expert lay assessors should independently express opinions on technical fact-finding issues.
The Guidelines also set management requirements for appraisal institutions and appraisers. After accepting an entrustment, they should submit the appraisal plan, appraiser information and commitment letter within five working days. Where molecular marker testing is used, the appraisal opinion should generally be issued within 30 working days. For difficult or complex cases, the period should not exceed 60 working days, and any extension in special circumstances should generally not exceed 30 working days.
For appraisal beyond the permitted scope, false appraisal, unjustified delay or other misconduct, courts may terminate the entrustment, order the return of appraisal fees, issue judicial recommendations, or transfer suspected criminal conduct to the competent authority.
Comment
The Guidelines are the first SPC document dedicated to technical fact-finding in plant variety cases. Their main value lies in turning what has often been a case-by-case technical exercise into a more structured and predictable judicial process. For rights holders, the Guidelines may reduce uncertainty in enforcement by clarifying how courts should review samples, testing methods, appraisal opinions and expert evidence. For breeding companies, research institutions and seed industry participants, they signal that Chinese courts will take a more predictable and technically informed approach to plant variety right enforcement.