On 25 April 2025, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released its decision regarding the appeal of a plant variety rights infringement case involving corn variety NP01154. The case was brought by Heng Seed Industry Co., Ltd. (Heng Company) against Henan Jin Seed Industry Co., Ltd. (Jin Company) for infringement of plant variety rights. The SPC overturned the lower court’s ruling and ordered Jin Company to cease the infringement and pay Heng Company economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling over RMB53.5 million (approximately USD 8 million).
The corn variety NP01154 is owned by Limagrain Europe, a French company. Heng Company, an affiliated entity of Limagrain Europe, filed the lawsuit in the first instance, alleging that Jin Company had produced and sold several hybrid corn varieties — including Zhengpin Corn 491 and Jinyuan Corn 304 — using NP01154 as a parent variety without authorization. Heng Company sought an injunction, punitive damages of RMB160 million, and reimbursement of RMB200,000 in legal costs.
First Instance
The hearing of the first instance proceedings was hold on 26 April 2024. Heng Company submitted four testing reports demonstrating that the parent variety YZ320 of the accused hybrids differed from NP01154 in only one genetic marker, arguing that this was sufficient to establish infringement. In response, Jin Company submitted Testing Report No. 2994, asserting that YZ320 differed from NP01154 at four of five additional genetic markers, and therefore should be considered a distinct variety.
The first-instance court accepted Jin Company’s testing evidence, found YZ320 and NP01154 to be distinct varieties, and dismissed Heng Company’s claims. Heng Company appealed the decision, seeking a full reversal and support for its claims.
Second Instance
The SPC reviewed the case on appeal, focusing on whether Jin Company had infringed NP01154’s plant variety rights and how liability should be determined. A critical issue was whether the parent varieties of the accused hybrids were identical to NP01154, especially concerning the scientific validity and evidentiary weight of Jin Company’s additional marker testing.
The SPC found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the five additional markers tested in Report No. 2994 were widely recognized and reliable for distinguishing varieties. The court held that the procedure for expanding genetic markers and selecting additional testing points failed to meet the standards required under relevant judicial interpretations and molecular marker testing guidelines for plant varieties. Accordingly, the court found the report’s conclusions unreliable. Furthermore, Jin Company’s claim that NP01154 was a “normal corn” and its hybrids were “glutinous corn,” and thus represented different varieties, lacked factual support.
The SPC determined that the evidence presented by Heng Company sufficiently proved that the parent varieties of the seven accused hybrids were identical to NP01154. Consequently, the court found that Jin Company had indeed infringed upon NP01154’s plant variety rights. Given the willful nature of the infringement, the SPC applied punitive damages, calculating the amount as twice the compensatory damages, ultimately awarding Heng Company over RMB53.5 million.
Comment
This case serves as a landmark decision, sending a clear signal that China is strengthening the protection of plant variety rights and taking a firm stance against infringement. Through the application of punitive damages, the ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to robustly safeguarding plant breeders’ rights and ensuring that right holders’ legitimate interests are effectively protected. The judgment clarifies the applicable conditions for using molecular marker technology in determining the identity of plant varieties and provides specific guidance on how to assess the necessity of expanded marker testing and the scientific validity of additional testing points. It offers an important reference for resolving similar disputes in the future.
For breeders, this case helps to strengthen the practical protection of plant variety rights, and further serves as a reminder to industry players that in the selection of parent plants and hybrid breeding activities, strict compliance must be ensured. Companies should proactively conduct intellectual property compliance audits, establish clear agreements for the use of parent varieties, and prevent infringement risks at the source, thereby reducing the likelihood of future litigation and minimizing potential damages exposure.
The corn variety NP01154 is owned by Limagrain Europe, a French company. Heng Company, an affiliated entity of Limagrain Europe, filed the lawsuit in the first instance, alleging that Jin Company had produced and sold several hybrid corn varieties — including Zhengpin Corn 491 and Jinyuan Corn 304 — using NP01154 as a parent variety without authorization. Heng Company sought an injunction, punitive damages of RMB160 million, and reimbursement of RMB200,000 in legal costs.
First Instance
The hearing of the first instance proceedings was hold on 26 April 2024. Heng Company submitted four testing reports demonstrating that the parent variety YZ320 of the accused hybrids differed from NP01154 in only one genetic marker, arguing that this was sufficient to establish infringement. In response, Jin Company submitted Testing Report No. 2994, asserting that YZ320 differed from NP01154 at four of five additional genetic markers, and therefore should be considered a distinct variety.
The first-instance court accepted Jin Company’s testing evidence, found YZ320 and NP01154 to be distinct varieties, and dismissed Heng Company’s claims. Heng Company appealed the decision, seeking a full reversal and support for its claims.
Second Instance
The SPC reviewed the case on appeal, focusing on whether Jin Company had infringed NP01154’s plant variety rights and how liability should be determined. A critical issue was whether the parent varieties of the accused hybrids were identical to NP01154, especially concerning the scientific validity and evidentiary weight of Jin Company’s additional marker testing.
The SPC found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the five additional markers tested in Report No. 2994 were widely recognized and reliable for distinguishing varieties. The court held that the procedure for expanding genetic markers and selecting additional testing points failed to meet the standards required under relevant judicial interpretations and molecular marker testing guidelines for plant varieties. Accordingly, the court found the report’s conclusions unreliable. Furthermore, Jin Company’s claim that NP01154 was a “normal corn” and its hybrids were “glutinous corn,” and thus represented different varieties, lacked factual support.
The SPC determined that the evidence presented by Heng Company sufficiently proved that the parent varieties of the seven accused hybrids were identical to NP01154. Consequently, the court found that Jin Company had indeed infringed upon NP01154’s plant variety rights. Given the willful nature of the infringement, the SPC applied punitive damages, calculating the amount as twice the compensatory damages, ultimately awarding Heng Company over RMB53.5 million.
Comment
This case serves as a landmark decision, sending a clear signal that China is strengthening the protection of plant variety rights and taking a firm stance against infringement. Through the application of punitive damages, the ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to robustly safeguarding plant breeders’ rights and ensuring that right holders’ legitimate interests are effectively protected. The judgment clarifies the applicable conditions for using molecular marker technology in determining the identity of plant varieties and provides specific guidance on how to assess the necessity of expanded marker testing and the scientific validity of additional testing points. It offers an important reference for resolving similar disputes in the future.
For breeders, this case helps to strengthen the practical protection of plant variety rights, and further serves as a reminder to industry players that in the selection of parent plants and hybrid breeding activities, strict compliance must be ensured. Companies should proactively conduct intellectual property compliance audits, establish clear agreements for the use of parent varieties, and prevent infringement risks at the source, thereby reducing the likelihood of future litigation and minimizing potential damages exposure.