Longer duration of protection for plant variety rights in Japan and New Zealand

It's the season for extending the duration of plant variety rights (PVR) protection, apparently. After South Africa and Canada's recent amendments to increase the duration of protection (see IPKat here and here), the trend has now arrived in Japan and New Zealand.

Japan's revised law

Image by Javiermirapeidro from Pixabay.
The amendments in Japan are the most radical. Yesterday, the House of Councillors (the upper house) voted to approve amendments to the Plant Variety Protection and Seed Act that brought several changes to the plant variety rights system. 

The duration of PVR protection was extended by 10 years, so that most species will receive a total of 35 years of protection, with woody plants (such as fruit trees) receiving a whopping 40 years of protection. For comparison, Community PVRs in the EU have a duration of 25 to 30 years, while some countries in eastern Europe offer slightly longer protection, such as Ukraine (up to 35 years), but Japan's new protections appear to be record-breaking.

The expanded protections didn't stop there. Japan also gave PVR applicants the option to request an injunction to block the unauthorised export of a variety during the provision period before the PVR is granted (which typically lasts about three to six years). This was motivated by reports of several major varieties being exported and sold online in South Korea and China without authorisation.

Finally, the revised statute will establish a dedicated organisation for managing PVRs. The organisation will be made up of experts who are familiar with IP and agriculture. Its aim is "to reduce the burden on local governments and individuals that have developed new varieties, as they may face difficulties pursuing legal action overseas due to language barriers and limited legal knowledge."

Proposed updates to the New Zealand system

The New Zealand Government announced in May that it would introducing amendments to the Plant Variety Rights Act 2022. The changes will bring the duration of protection into line with the EU by extending the protection by five years. This means that most species will receive 25 years of protection, while potatoes and woody plants will receive 30 years of protection.

The reforms will also restore provisional protection (which the government omitted from the 2022 Act). This will permit a PVR applicant to commence legal proceedings during the before the PVR is granted, but with safeguards to protect innocent growers in the event the PVR is not granted.

The text of the bill has not been released yet, but the government promised to table the amendments sometime in 2026. We'll see if they manage to make progress on these amendments before the general election in early November.

Final Thoughts

Both jurisdictions have seen a downturn in the number of PVR applications in recent years. Their governments have said that increasing the strength and duration of protection should incentivise more breeding and lead to more applications in the future. This Kat suspects that other factors might provide a better explanation for the reduced application numbers, but only time will tell whether these reforms actually promote more breeding and PVR applications in Japan and New Zealand. 

Longer duration of protection for plant variety rights in Japan and New Zealand Longer duration of protection for plant variety rights in Japan and New Zealand Reviewed by Jocelyn Bosse on Saturday, July 18, 2026 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.