China’s Supreme People’s Court publishes typical cases on judicial protection of seed industry intellectual property

On 26 March 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) published its sixth batch of typical cases on judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry (Sixth Batch). The cases were selected from proceedings concluded by courts across China in 2025. Of the ten cases, nine are civil infringement cases and one is an administrative penalty case involving plant variety rights. They cover a wide range of plant varieties, including maize, wheat, rice, soybean, tomato, apple, and pomegranate, and originate from nine provinces and autonomous regions.

The Sixth Batch consolidates three overarching judicial themes important to plant variety rights holders and seed industry participants.

Stronger protection through punitive damages

Four of the ten typical cases applied punitive damages, demonstrating the SPC’s willingness to award enhanced compensation where infringement is deliberate and egregious.

The “NP01154” maize case is the most significant. The SPC reversed a first-instance judgment, found that seven approved hybrid maize varieties all infringed the claimant’s exclusive licence, and applied a 2x (i.e. two times) punitive multiplier for wilful infringement spanning five years and affecting 8,243.4 mu of production area. The resulting award of over CNY 53.347 million in economic losses set a new record for plant variety infringement damages in China. 

In the “Nongmai 88” wheat case, a 3x (i.e. three times) multiplier was applied against parties who sold infringing seed in unmarked “plain bag” packaging over an extended period. The warehouse owners bore joint and several liability for the compensatory (but not the punitive) component of the award, reflecting the distinction between wilful and negligent participation in the infringing chain.

The “Jihong 6” rice case applied a 2x multiplier for counterfeit labelling infringement where the infringer relabelled infringing seed under the guise of a different approved variety. The “Qihuang 34” soybean case likewise applied a 2x multiplier, targeting the sale and storage of infringing seed in unmarked “plain bag” packaging with no traceability. 

Refined adjudication rules for variety identification and liability

The Sixth Batch addresses several recurring technical and procedural disputes in seed industry litigation.

On molecular marker testing, the “NP01154” maize case establishes that expanding the number of test loci is only permissible where the number of difference loci between the tested sample and the reference sample is below but close to the threshold, and where the following conditions are met: 

• the additional loci have sufficient genetic polymorphism and stability; 
• there is a strong correlation between the associated genes and the phenotype; 
• the correlation has been sufficiently evaluated and validated scientifically; and 
• functional markers tightly linked to the relevant traits have been developed.

On the enforcement of injunctive relief, the “NP01154” maize case sets out specific requirements for cessation of infringement: the infringer must stop using the infringing parent variety to produce the seven approved hybrid maize seeds and cease selling the infringing seed; render infringing seeds biologically inert under court supervision or witnessed by the claimant; and notify its shareholders and affiliated entities of the judgment and the cessation requirements, requiring them to sign non-infringement undertakings. In this case, daily penalty payments of CNY 100,000, CNY 50,000, and CNY 20,000 respectively apply to each obligation for delayed compliance.

On storage liability, the “Nongmai 88” wheat case clarifies that under the Seed Law as revised in 2021, storing propagating materials of an authorised variety propagating materials without authorisation for the purpose of infringement constitutes direct infringement, rather than merely aiding and abetting. Where multiple parties jointly participate in infringing conduct and the circumstances are serious, wilful infringers bear punitive damages liability while negligent participants are jointly and severally liable only for the compensatory portion of the award, ensuring that liability is commensurate with each party’s subjective fault and the nature of their conduct.

On the calculation of infringing profits, the “Qihuang 34” soybean case confirms the following methodology: deduct the commodity grain unit price from the infringing seed unit price, apply a reasonable uplift to the resulting margin, and use the warehouse stockpile scale as a reference to determine total sales volume.

On variety identity and the “other authorised variety” defence, the “WG646” maize case establishes that where a rights holder submits evidence that the suspected infringing variety shares the same characteristics as the authorised variety, a respondent cannot overcome that evidence simply by asserting that the infringing variety is a different authorised variety. In principle, such a defence will not be upheld.

On the inactivation of infringing seedlings, the “Tianshihong” pomegranate case holds that an order to cease sales is insufficient where the infringing material remains capable of further propagation. The infringer must render the seedlings completely and permanently incapable of regeneration, with the specific method calibrated to the growth stage of the plant material at the time of enforcement. 

On burden of proof in parental variety cases, the “WH818” maize case confirms that once a rights holder presents parentage testing evidence suggesting a parent-offspring relationship between the authorised variety and the accused seed, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that the authorised variety was not used as a parent. Failure to submit evidence of non-use of the authorised variety results in the respondent bearing the adverse consequences of that evidential failure.

On administrative enforcement, the “R900” rice case establishes that a civil settlement between the infringer and the variety right holder does not preclude administrative enforcement where the infringing conduct is on a scale sufficient to harm seed market order and agricultural security. Administrative and civil liability are separate legal regimes. A settlement may be considered a mitigating factor but does not substitute for administrative sanction. 

Extending the reach of protection

Two cases in the Sixth Batch address the boundaries of plant variety right protection.

On import and subsequent sale, the “Jijia” tomato case clarifies the territorial scope of plant variety right protection: where the import of propagating material predates the grant of a plant variety right, but the sale occurs after the grant, the subsequent sale constitutes infringement. The case also establishes a framework for apportioning liability among participants in the infringing supply chain: the party that organised the import and led the repackaging and sale bears primary liability while parties involved in downstream sale, seedling cultivation, and import assistance bear joint and several liability to the extent reflecting their respective degree of fault.

On prior rights and illegally obtained material, the “Purui A280” apple case holds that propagating material obtained unlawfully before the filing date of a variety right cannot give rise to a prior right capable of defeating that variety right. More broadly, the SPC noted that the probability of different breeders independently developing the same variety is extremely low, and a prior rights defence is therefore in principle difficult to sustain in the plant variety context.

Summary

The Sixth Batch signals a clear and consistent judicial direction: plant variety rights in China will be protected vigorously, with punitive damages applied where warranted, technical defences scrutinised carefully, and infringing activity addressed at every point in the commercial chain, from production, import and storage through to sale and downstream propagation. Administrative liability operates in parallel with civil remedies and is not displaced by settlement.

Rights holders in the seed industry should do the following in light of these cases:

• Maintain comprehensive evidence of variety characteristics, sales records, and pricing data, as these are directly relevant to both liability and the calculation of damages.
• Monitor downstream commercial activity from the date of grant, bearing in mind that infringing sales may occur even where the propagating material was imported before the variety right was granted.
• Consider enforcement action against all participants in the infringing supply chain, including storage providers and affiliated entities, not just the primary producer or seller.
• Engage early with administrative enforcement channels alongside civil litigation, as the two are complementary and not mutually exclusive.

The original publication can be found here (Chinese only).

For more information on plant variety rights protection and seed industry IP strategy in China, contact your CMS client partner or the CMS experts who wrote this article.