*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Case Facts

The plaintiff, a [REDACTED] breeding technology company, alleges: It is the holder of the plant variety right for the corn variety designated as "Jinxi 865" (variety right No. CNA2008****.4). The application date for this variety right was October 27, 2008, and the grant date was January 1, 2014. The plaintiff discovered that a [REDACTED] agricultural joint-stock company used "Jinxi865" as a paternal parent to produce hybrid corn seeds, and therefore filed this lawsuit seeking an injunction against the infringement and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

The defendant, a [REDACTED] agricultural joint-stock company, argued that in 2021, it used the allegedly infringing plot to produce 50,000 to 60,000 jin of hybrid seeds. These seeds were used for three-year foundational trials and variety approval trials, and were also distributed free of charge to farmers for trial demonstrations in advance of future variety promotion. This conduct constituted scientific research activities and was not for commercial purposes.

The court found through its proceedings that in September 2021, following an on-site inspection and sampling by the local Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs   , the agricultural joint-stock company had planted approximately 210 mu of hybrid corn on the disputed plot. Samples of the paternal line were taken and subjected to forensic examination, revealing zero differing loci compared to the "Jinxi 865" standard sample, confirming it to be an extremely similar or identical variety.

In its civil judgment No. (2021) Gan 01 Zhi   Min Chu 52 issued on February 6, 2023, the Lanzhou Intermediate People's Court of Gansu Province ruled that the agricultural joint-stock company's use of "Jinxi 865" to produce hybrid seeds infringed upon the plant variety rights of a [REDACTED] breeding technology company. The court ordered the company to cease the infringement and pay a total of 200,000 yuan in compensation for economic losses   and reasonable expenses incurred in asserting its rights.The agricultural joint-stock company filed an appeal, arguing that the alleged infringing   acts were solely for the purpose of breeding new plant varieties and that the production of seeds for new variety approval, regional trial demonstrations,and did not constitute "for commercial purposes." On February 21, 2024, the Supreme People's Court issued Civil Judgment No. (2023) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Appeal No. 738, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

Judge's Opinion

In this case, a [REDACTED] agricultural joint-stock company reused propagation materials of the authorized variety "Jinxi 865" to produce propagation materials for another variety. Whether this act constitutes an infringement of the "Jinxi 865"? This primarily depends on whether the production activity was carried out "for commercial purposes."

First, for newly developed varieties, the breeder's completion of breeding activities and the preparation of a variety selection report and a comparative trial report are prerequisites for applying to the Office of the Variety Certification Committee for variety certification. In this case, although a [REDACTED] agricultural joint-stock company proved that it had conducted some breeding activities,it failed to establish a valid chain of evidence proving that the breeding of this hybrid had been completed.

Second, during the variety approval process, there are specific requirements regarding the number of trial sites and planting area for each stage, such as regional trials and production trials. In accordance with the aforementioned regulations, when a breeder uses propagation material of an authorized variety as parental material to produce a [REDACTED] quantity of hybrid seeds for use as trial seeds in the variety approval process, this constitutes the reuse of the authorized variety's propagation material for the purpose of variety approval and constitutes a scientific research activity, which does not constitute infringement. In this case, a [REDACTED] agricultural joint-stock company admitted that the plot of land in question produced as many as 50,000 to 60,000 jin of hybrid seeds; even if these hybrid seeds were intended for variety approval trials, the scale of this production far exceeded the quantity of seeds required for multiple planting cycles during the variety approval process.

Third, the agricultural joint-stock company admitted that it gave away tens of thousands of jin of the aforementioned hybrid seeds to farmers. The company's claim that this act was intended to prepare for future market promotion following approval is clearly a commercial act aimed at shortening the commercialization cycle and gaining a competitive advantage in the market; therefore, it should be deemed to have a commercial purpose.

Judgement Digest

In cases involving disputes over the infringement of plant variety rights, where a producer claims that production was conducted to provide seeds required for variety approval and therefore does not constitute "for commercial purposes," a comprehensive analysis should be conducted to determine whether the producer has completed the breeding , whether the scale of production exceeds the quantity of seeds required for comparative trials during the approval process, and whether there are other purposes.

Related Index

Article 28 of the Seed Law of the People's Republic of China (Article 28 of the Seed Law of the People's Republic of China, effective as of January 1, 2016, applies to this case)

First Instance: Civil Judgment No. (2021) Gan 01 Zhi Min Chu 52 of the Lanzhou Intermediate People's Court, Gansu Province (February 6, 2023)

Appeal: Supreme People's Court Civil Judgment No. (2023) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Appeal 738 (February 21, 2024)

The text of this case was updated on May 29, 2025