*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

[Case Brief]

Heng [REDACTED] Company was the exclusive licensee of the involved corn plant variety NP01154. It filed a lawsuit for infringement of plant variety rights, claiming that seven hybrid corn approved varieties, including Zhengpinyu 491, produced and sold by Jin [REDACTED] Company, were all produced using the NP01154 variety as a parent without permission. In the first instance, Heng [REDACTED] Company submitted four test reports proving that the difference in loci between the parent YZ320 of the accused infringing variety and NP01154 was 1, and accordingly claimed that the seven varieties were infringing varieties. Jin [REDACTED] Company submitted Test Report No. 2994, formed by testing additional loci, claiming that 4 out of the 5 additional loci showed differences, and that the two were different varieties. The court of first instance accepted Test Report No. 2994, determined that the parent YZ320 of the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety NP01154 were different varieties, and ruled to dismiss all claims of Heng [REDACTED] Company. Dissatisfied, Heng [REDACTED] Company appealed.

In the second instance, the Supreme People's Court held that Test Report No. 2994 was made without meeting the prerequisites for expanding loci testing and thus lacked probative value. The evidence in this case could prove that the parents (male parents) of the seven accused infringing hybrid corn varieties were identical to the authorized variety, and Jin [REDACTED] Company's actions constituted infringement of the NP01154 variety right. Jin [REDACTED] Company intentionally infringed, with an infringing planting area of over 8,000 mu, and the circumstances were serious, thus punitive damages should apply. The final second-instance judgment revoked the first-instance judgment, ordered Jin [REDACTED] Company to immediately cease infringing the NP01154 variety right, and compensate Heng [REDACTED] Company for economic losses of over 53.347 million yuan and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 200,000 yuan.

[Recommendation Reasons]

1. This is currently the plant variety infringement case with the highest compensation amount.By accurately determining the nature of the conduct and applying punitive damages according to law, it upholds a distinct judicial stance of effectively strengthening intellectual property protection.

2. This judgment, for the first time, clarifies the conditions for adopting expanded loci testing when using molecular marker methods to determine variety identity, which has important reference significance for resolving similar disputes.

3. By detailing the specific requirements for cessation of infringement and clarifying the calculation and payment standards for late payment penalties for non-pecuniary obligations, attaching a notification template and a letter of undertaking template hereto, and specifying the seed inactivation process, notification targets, and time limit for material submission, it ensures timely and comprehensive execution of the judgment. This dual guarantee mechanism of detailed measures plus accountability-driven restraint not only safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of the variety right holder but also provides judicial guidance for specific measures to cease infringement in seed industry infringement disputes. After the judgment was pronounced, the infringer promptly and voluntarily performed all the infringement liabilities determined in the judgment, allowing the right holder to realize the the entitled interests from the successful lawsuit in a timely manner.

4. This case has significant social impact and has received widespread attention from news media, experts, scholars, and people's congress deputies.