A-maize-ing award of damages for corn variety rights infringement in China

There have been interesting updates to the protection of plant varieties in China. At the start of this month, the revised Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties came into effect. This comes after the news of another record-breaking award of damages in a plant variety rights infringement case, totalling RMB 53.347 million (nearly £5.5 million).

The kernel of the infringement case

Things are popping off for plant variety rights in China.
Image from Djordje Vezilic via Pexels.

The dispute centred on the plant variety rights for a corn/maize plant variety named 'NP01154', owned by the French company, Limagrain, and exclusively licensed to a company called Hengji. 

The complaint focused on seven hybrid corn varieties produced and sold by Henan Jin XX Company ("Jin"), namely 'Zheng Pinyu 491', 'Jinyuanyu 304', 'Jinyuanyu 171', 'Zheng Pinyu 597', 'Jinyuanyu 181', 'Zhengyuanyu 777' and 'Zhengyuanyu 887'. Hengji claimed that these varieties were all produced without authorisation, using 'NP01154' as a parent.

China amended its Seed Law in 2021 to strengthen its plant variety protection system and give effect to certain requirements of UPOV 1991. UPOV Article 14(5) includes essentially derived varieties within the scope of the breeder's right, which are defined as:

• varieties which are essentially derived from the protected variety, where the protected variety is not itself an essentially derived variety, 
• varieties which are not clearly distinguishable from the protected variety, and
• varieties whose production requires the repeated use of the protected variety. 

The new Chinese Seed Law introduced the concept of essentially derived varieties in Article 28, but with slightly different language from UPOV: "No entity or individual shall, without the consent of the variety right holder ... repeatedly use for commercial purposes the propagating material of the said protected variety in the production of the propagating material of another variety".

In response to the infringement claim, Jin argued that the parent variety, which it called 'YZ320', was different from the protected 'NP01154' variety. The parties each produced reports using molecular markers to prove whether or not the varieties were identical. At first instance, the Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court accepted Jin's evidence that the varieties were genetically different based on five additional markers and therefore not infringing. 

On appeal, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court found that Jin's evidence did not meet the evidentiary standards, since the additional markers in its reports were not generally-recognised markers to distinguish corn varieties. Therefore, the court instead accepted Hengji's evidence showing that the parent variety was identical to the protected 'NP01154' variety. 

As this Kat previously reported, the new Chinese Seed Law increased the amount of punitive damages available in cases of intentional infringement to RMB 5 million. Earlier this year, a case of apple variety rights infringement saw an impressive award of RMB 3.3 million (£319,000) in damages. This latest corn variety infringement award significantly exceeds that previous record.

The infringing variety was intentionally used to produce 7 hybrid varieties over the course of at least 5 years, over an area of approximately 8,243 acres. The court considered this to be serious infringement, which warranted punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, totalling RMB 53.347 million.

Revised regulations come into effect

Shortly after this decision, China published its revised Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties, which came into effect on 1 June 2025. As this Kat reported elsewhere, these regulations had remained in "draft" form since 2022 and their finalisation was necessary to fully implement the essentially derived variety (EDV) system. 

Article 8 of the new Regulations confirms that the identification of an EDV is "mainly determined based on molecular detection and phenotypic testing results, and when necessary, factors such as breeding methods, breeding processes, and genetic relationships shall be comprehensively considered." The competent departments of agriculture are expected to produce further guidance and establish a pool of experts who can provide support for the implementation of the EDV system.

The Regulations also made several other changes, such as extending the duration of protection by an additional five years, which amounts to 25 years for woody and vine plants, and 20 years for all other plants. With these changes, the Chinese Seed Law accords more closely with UPOV 1991. This leaves its farmer's rights exceptions as the key remaining barrier to China's potential accession to the latest version of the UPOV Convention.