What are the implications of ten typical cases of intellectual property rights in the seed industry?

Protecting intellectual property rights in the seed industry is protecting innovation.

Recently, the Supreme People's Court released the introduction of the top 10 influential cases and the list of 100 typical cases of the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court. Among them, there were many intellectual property cases that caused a sensation in the industry at that time, including the infringement case of the new plant variety of "Sanhong Honey Pomelo", the infringement case of the new corn plant variety of "Danyu No. 405", and the infringement case of the new corn plant variety of "Denghai 605". What are the lessons from these judgments? Let's take a look.

01

"Nongmai 168" new wheat plant variety authorization case

[Draft issue]

(2023) Supreme Law Zhi Xing Zhong No. 95

[Basic facts of the case]

Jiangsu Shenyi Industry Technology Co., Ltd. is the applicant for the application of a new variety of wheat plant with application number 20161023.9 and the name "Nongmai 168". In response to the application, the Plant Variety Review Board upheld the decision to reject the variety application.

Dissatisfied, Jiangsu Shenyi Industry Technology Co., Ltd. filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, mainly on the grounds that the DUS test report of plant varieties issued by the Plant Variety Testing (Nanjing) Sub-center (hereinafter referred to as the Nanjing Sub-center) chose Nanjing as the test location incorrectly. The court of first instance decided to revoke the decision and the Plant Variety Review Committee made a new decision. Dissatisfied, the Plant Variety Review Board appealed.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the determination of the DUS test site should be based on the applicant's record of the area and environment suitable for the growth of the variety in the specification, combined with the type of variety and the breeding process and method, and the standard should be to ensure that the traits of the variety are fully expressed. According to the records of the request and the description of the application involved in the case, the area or environment suitable for the growth of "Nongmai 168" includes some areas north of the Huai River in Jiangsu Province; Based on the records of its cultivation sites, the area that can express the characteristics of this variety does not exclude Jianhu County, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, south of the Huai River. When there are multiple options for testing institutions, under the condition of ensuring the full expression of variety traits, the testing site can be determined in a centralized and nearby manner by comprehensively considering factors such as administrative efficiency and testing convenience. Whether the Nanjing branch was selected as the testing institution to ensure that the traits of "Nongmai 168" were fully expressed could be further corroborated by its planting performance with similar varieties. The similar variety "Huaimai 21" was tested in two complete growth cycles in Nanjing Branch, and the growth and development stages were normal, and the trait description table showed that all 36 basic traits could be expressed in a reasonable range, and the performance of the tested traits in the two growth cycles was consistent. None of the traits expressed in the growth and fertility process of "Nongmai 168" and "Huaimai 21" were affected by the test site, and they were fully expressed, which further indicated that the Nanjing Branch Center was determined as the testing institution, and the determination of the test site was not improper. Therefore, the judgment revoked the first-instance judgment and rejected the litigation claim of Jiangsu Shenyi Technology Co., Ltd.

【Typical Significance】

This case is the first administrative case heard by the Supreme People's Court involving the determination of DUS test sites in the process of granting new plant varieties, and focuses on clarifying the basic requirement that the determination of DUS test sites should be based on the standard of ensuring that the traits of the varieties are fully expressed.

02

Infringement case of new plant variety of "Sanhong Honey Pomelo".

[Draft issue]

(2019) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 14

[Basic facts of the case]

The owner of the new plant variety with the right number of CNA20090677.9 and the name of "Sanhong Pomelo". It believed that a commercial company in Guangzhou City Run had continuously sold a large number of "Sanhong Pomelo" fruits, infringing on its variety rights involved in the case, so it filed a lawsuit. The court of first instance rejected Cai Mouguang's claim. Cai Mouguang was not satisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that, according to the Seed Law amended in 2015, which should be applied in this case, the propagating material of the authorized variety is the scope of protection of the right to new plant varieties and the basis for the owner of the variety right to exercise the exclusive right of exclusivity. The scope of protection of the authorized variety is not limited to the propagating material obtained in the specific manner adopted at the time of applying for the variety right, and even if it is different from the propagating material commonly used by breeders at the stage of granting the new plant variety right, other plant material that can be used for the propagating material of the authorized variety shall also be included in the scope of protection of the new plant variety right. In order for plant material to be considered propagating material of an authorized variety, the following conditions must be met at the same time: it is a living organism, it has the ability to reproduce, and the new individual produced must have the same characteristics as the authorized variety. Comprehensively considering the specific circumstances of the varieties involved in the case, the opinions of the expert assistants and the actual plant tissue culture technology, the seeds and juice cells of the allegedly infringing pomelo fruit in this case did not have the ability to propagate the authorized variety Sanhong pomelo, and did not belong to the propagation materials of the Sanhong pomelo variety. The allegedly infringing pomelo fruit is a harvesting material rather than a propagation material, and does not fall within the scope of protection of the right to new plant varieties according to Article 28 of the Seed Law amended in 2015, which should be applied in this case. Therefore, the conduct of a commercial company in Guangzhou Run did not infringe on the rights to new plant varieties involved in the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

【Typical Significance】

Although the Seed Law amended in 2021 extends the scope of protection of plant variety rights from the propagating material of the authorized variety to the harvested material, and stipulates that if the owner of the right to a new plant variety does not have a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to the propagating material, he may exercise his right in the harvested material, but the determination of whether the propagating material belongs to the authorized variety is still an important basis for the legal system of variety right. The judgment of this case clarifies the basic issues such as the criteria for the identification of propagating materials, the relationship between the scope of protection of the right to new plant varieties and the breeding method, etc., which still has important guiding significance.

03

"YA8201"玉米植物新品种侵权案

[Draft issue]

(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong Nos. 783 and 789

[Basic facts of the case]

Sichuan Ya Technology Co., Ltd. is the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety "YA8201", and it filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Yunnan Jin Mou Industry Company repeatedly used "YA8201" to produce "Jinhe Yu 618" and "Jinhe 880" corn seeds for commercial purposes, and Yunnan Rui Mou Industry Co., Ltd. lent crop seed production and business licenses to Yunnan Jin Mou Industry Co., Ltd., requesting that Yunnan Jin Mou Industry Company and Yunnan Rui Mou Industry Co., Ltd. be ordered to stop the infringement and jointly and severally bear punitive damages.

The court of first instance held that Yunnan Jin Mou Industrial Company constituted infringement and Yunnan Rui Mou Industrial Company constituted aiding and infringing, and that punitive damages should be applied, so it ordered the two companies to stop the infringement and jointly and severally compensated more than 100,000 yuan and more than 450,000 yuan respectively in the two cases. Sichuan Ya technology company and Yunnan Jin Industry Company were not satisfied and appealed respectively.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Yunnan Jin Industry Company knew that "YA8201" was a new plant variety for which Sichuan Ya Technology Company had variety rights, but still illegally leased the crop seed production and business license from others and carried out relevant infringements, which constituted intentional infringement and the circumstances were serious, and punitive damages should be applied; Yunnan Jin's refusal to provide the financial account books related to the infringement as required by the court constitutes an obstacle to the presentation of evidence, and it may adopt the profits claimed by the variety right holder, and consider the contribution rate of the "YA8201" variety right to "Jinhe Yu 618" and "Jinhe 880", and determine the calculation base of punitive damages. Therefore, the judgment was changed to Yunnan Jinmou Industrial Company to compensate Sichuan Ya Technology Company more than 690,000 yuan and more than 1.52 million yuan respectively in the two cases; Yunnan Rui Industrial Company shall be jointly and severally liable for illegally lending crop seed production and operation licenses.

【Typical Significance】

In these two cases, the people's courts adhered to the judicial concept of strong protection of intellectual property rights, reasonably determined the contribution rate of the parental variety rights to the infringing profits, and applied the rule of proof obstruction to solve the problem of "difficulty in adducing evidence" for the infringement profits of the variety right holders. The case also applied punitive damages to the infringement of leasing crop seed production and business licenses, effectively increased the compensation for variety infringement, and provided a strong judicial guarantee for the purification of the seed market.

04

"Yufeng 303" new corn plant variety infringement case

[Draft issue]

(2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 2105

[Basic facts of the case]

Beijing Lian Mou Industrial Co., Ltd., the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety "Yufeng 303", filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Wu Moushou's unauthorized breeding of the corn seeds of the variety involved in the case infringed the right to the variety involved in the case, and requested that Wu Moushou be ordered to compensate for losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 315,500 yuan.

The court of first instance found that Wu's conduct constituted infringement. However, because the infringement has stopped, and Beijing Lianyi Industry Company has no evidence to prove that it was damaged by infringement or that Wu Moushou has made profits from infringement, considering that the agricultural administrative law enforcement department has inactivated the seeds and ears involved in the case, and it cannot be used as propagation materials to enter the market, its claim for compensation for losses is not supported, and Wu Moushou is sentenced to compensate for reasonable expenses of 5,000 yuan. Dissatisfied, Beijing Lianyi Industrial Company appealed.

The Supreme People's Court held that the infringer's act of producing propagating materials had already crowded out the market space of the variety rights holder, including the scale of the seed market and the commercial grain market that the variety right holder might have realized, and even if the propagating material did not enter the seed market due to inactivation, it did not mean that the variety right holder had not suffered losses. The inactivation of infringing propagating material only prevents further expansion of losses, but does not reverse the losses that have already occurred. In addition to the infringer's responsibility to take inactivation measures, the right holder's request that it bear the responsibility for compensation for losses should be supported. Therefore, Wu Moushou was sentenced to compensate Beijing Lianyi Industrial Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 212,000 yuan.

【Typical Significance】

This case clarifies the relationship between the civil liability of ordering inactivation measures and compensating for losses in cases of infringement of rights to new plant varieties, and clarifies that the infringer shall still be liable for compensation for losses after the infringing propagating material is inactivated, reflecting the clear judicial orientation of comprehensive protection of variety rights in accordance with the law.

05

"Danyu No. 405" new corn plant variety infringement case

[Draft issue]

(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 2907

[Basic facts of the case]

Liaoning Danyi Industry Science and Technology Co., Ltd. is the owner of the variety rights of the new corn plant variety "Danyu No. 405", and it asserted that Linghai Agricultural Industry Technology Company obtained the parents of the "Danyu No. 405" corn variety through illegal channels without permission, and produced and sold "Danyu No. 405" corn seeds for commercial purposes, which was intentional infringement and the circumstances were serious, so it filed a lawsuit, requesting that Linghai Agricultural Technology Company and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Company be ordered to stop the infringement and inactivate the allegedly infringing seeds. The joint compensation is 3 million yuan, including 1.5 million yuan in punitive damages.

The court of first instance held that Liaoning Dan Industrial Technology Company had failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove its actual losses, infringement profits or licensing fees from the infringer, and had not clarified the method and basis for calculating the base amount of punitive damages, and that the calculation base of punitive damages could not be determined in this case, so it decided that Linghai Agricultural Technology Company should pay 1 million yuan and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Company should pay 50,000 yuan.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the infringement of Linghai Agricultural Technology Company was long-lasting, wide-ranging, and large-scale, and that it had repeatedly committed counterfeit infringement and repeated infringement, and the infringement had been repeatedly prohibited, and the circumstances were serious; The first-instance judgment has found that Linghai Nongyi Industry Technology Company has the intent to infringe and the circumstances of infringement are serious, and that Liaoning Dan Industry Technology Company has submitted relevant evidence involving the amount of compensation and has the conditions for determining the base amount of punitive damages, it still does not support the punitive damages claim on the grounds that it cannot determine the compensation base, and the application of law is improper, so the judgment is changed to fully support Liaoning Dan Industry Technology Company's claim for compensation of 3 million yuan.

【Typical Significance】

This case severely cracked down on the infringement of multiple decks, and clarified that when it is difficult to accurately calculate the base of punitive damages, the base of punitive damages can be determined based on the evidence in the case, which effectively exerts the deterrent effect of punitive damages, and reflects the firm determination of the judiciary to protect the innovation of the seed industry.

06

"Denghai 605" new corn plant variety infringement case

[Draft issue]

(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 293

[Basic facts of the case]

Shandong Dengyi Industrial Company is the owner of the variety right of the new variety right of "Denghai 605" corn plant, and it believes that Liu Moutang and Henan Feng Agricultural Technology Company, which it actually controls, sold "Denghai 605" corn seeds without authorization and the label content on the package does not match the variety, so it filed a lawsuit, requesting the application of punitive damages, and ordering Henan Feng Agricultural Technology Company and Liu Moutang to stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses of 600,000 yuan for rights protection.

The court of first instance held that the processing and sale of bulk seeds purchased by Liu Moutang without the permission of the variety right holder constituted infringement, and Liu Moutang was the subject responsible for the act, and even if there was an act carried out in the name of the company, it was actually done by Liu Moutang personally. Comprehensively considering the nature, time, scale of operation, sales price of the allegedly infringing seeds and other relevant factors, it was determined that Liu Moutang should compensate 60,000 yuan for economic losses and 10,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. Shandong Deng's industrial company was dissatisfied and appealed, claiming that Henan Feng Agricultural Technology Company was a joint infringer of Liu Moutang, and the two should jointly and severally compensate 600,000 yuan.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Liu Moutang was the actual controller of an agricultural science and technology company in Feng, Henan, and that the company was specially established by Liu Moutang to carry out infringement, and was a tool for Liu Moutang to engage in infringement. After the establishment of the company, Liu Moutang, as the actual controller, actively participated in the alleged infringement in this case, and his implementation of the alleged infringement not only reflected the will of the company, but also reflected the personal will of Liu Moutang. Liu Moutang and Henan Feng Agricultural Technology Company constitute joint infringement and shall bear joint and several liability in accordance with law. At the same time, the company also had the circumstance of producing and operating corn seeds without obtaining a crop seed production and operation license; Liu Moutang was convicted of the crime of producing and selling fake and shoddy products by impersonating the name of another company and using non-existent varieties to sell seeds, which shows the heinous circumstances of his alleged infringement. Therefore, three times the punitive damages were applied in accordance with the law, and at the same time, the reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement were considered, and the judgment was changed to fully support the compensation claim of 600,000 yuan for the variety right holder.

【Typical Significance】

The judgment of this case explains that if a legal person is controlled by the actual controller after its establishment and mainly engages in tortious acts, the legal person is a tool for the actual controller to commit the infringing acts, which constitutes a tortious business, and the legal person and the actual controller constitute joint infringement and shall bear joint and several liability. At the same time, punitive damages were applied in this case, which fully supported the claim of the variety right holder. The judgment of this case is conducive to unifying the adjudication standards of similar cases, and also demonstrates the strong protection of the right to new plant varieties.

07

"Yanghuimai No. 4" new wheat plant variety infringement case

[Draft issue]

(2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 884

[Basic facts of the case]

Jiangsu Jinyi Industrial Co., Ltd. is the owner of the variety right of the new wheat plant variety "Yanghuimai No. 4". Without the permission of Jiangsu Jinyi Industrial Company, Yangzhou Jinji Industrial Company produced and sold wheat seeds involved in the case packaged in white leather bags. Dai Moumei and Yang Mouyin, the original shareholders of Yangzhou Jinjin Industrial Company who did not pay the subscribed capital contribution in full, transferred the company to an individual who was obviously incapable of operating at a consideration of zero yuan after the infringement occurred, and reduced the company's subscribed capital contribution of 6.8 million yuan to 100,000 yuan through the capital reduction procedure. Jiangsu Jin Moumou Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Yangzhou Jinyi Industrial Co., Ltd. be ordered to stop the infringement and compensate for losses, and Dai Moumei and Yang Mouyin should bear supplementary liability for compensation.

The court of first instance upheld the claim of Jiangsu Jinyi Industrial Company. Dai Moumei and Yang Mouyin were dissatisfied and appealed separately, asserting that they should not bear legal responsibility.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Dai Moumei and Yang Mouyin's acts of unpaid capital contribution, zero yuan transfer of the company, and capital reduction were continuous and purposeful, and there was obviously an intention to evade capital contribution and avoid bearing tort liability. Moreover, after the capital reduction, the company was no longer able to repay the tortious debts incurred by the company before the capital reduction. At this time, if the original shareholders of the company are not judged to bear the corresponding liability for compensation to the creditors for the debt, they actually condone the behavior of the original shareholders to use the form of equity transfer to damage the interests of creditors and evade the obligation of capital contribution. The creditor's request for the original shareholder to bear supplementary liability should be supported. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

【Typical Significance】

The judgment of this case effectively regulates the malicious evasion of tort liability by means of corporate equity transfer, effectively protects the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder, and demonstrates the people's court's clear attitude of strengthening the judicial protection of intellectual property rights.

08

"Ningmai 13" new wheat plant variety infringement case

[Draft issue]

(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 1262

[Basic facts of the case]

Jiangsu Ming Industry Science and Technology Co., Ltd., the exclusive licensee of the new wheat plant variety "Ningmai 13", believed that Huai'anfeng Industry Research and Breeding Company's act of selling "Ningmai 13" wheat seeds in the form of "white bags" without permission infringed the rights of the new plant variety involved in the case, so it filed a lawsuit, requesting the application of punitive damages, ordering Huai'an Feng Industry Research and Breeding Company to stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 3 million yuan.

The first-instance judgment upheld all the claims of Jiangsu Mingyi Technology Company. Dissatisfied, Huai'an Feng Industrial Research and Breeding Company appealed, claiming that it sold "wheat heads" instead of seeds, and did not infringe the rights to new plant varieties involved in the case, and should not be liable for compensation.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Huai'an Feng is a professional seed production company with primary processing capacity and a certain scale, and its duty of care is different from that of ordinary market entities. At the same time, as the main body with the basis of cooperative operation with Jiangsu Ming Industry Technology Company, it should perform the contract in good faith and integrity. However, in the process of entrusted seed production, it clearly knew that the alleged infringing material had the ability to reproduce, neither clearly agreed on the use in the contract with others, nor did it sell it to the grower for inactivation, and did not care about the nature of the purchaser and its use after purchase, resulting in the alleged infringing material being used as propagation material, and allowing the infringement to occur, constituting an infringement of the right to the new plant variety involved in the case. According to the sales volume, profit and other data, the actual loss of Jiangsu Ming industry technology company can be calculated. Huai'anfeng has a certain industry research and breeding company in the case of selling "Ningmai 13" propagation materials in packaging without identification and labeling, and its behavior actually leads to the flow of inferior seeds with purity, clarity, germination rate, moisture and other indicators that do not meet national standards to the market, and at the same time damages the interests of growers. Based on the evidence in the case, the actual losses of Jiangsu Ming Industry Technology Company were calculated, and the serious circumstances of the alleged infringement were considered, and three times the punitive damages were applied in accordance with the law.

【Typical Significance】

This case clarifies that seed production enterprises should inactivate plant materials that do not meet the national standards for seed selection but have the ability to reproduce before sale, or clearly agree on the use in the sale to ensure that they are not used as propagation materials, which reflects the judicial orientation of advocating good faith and good faith performance, purifying the seed market, and strengthening the protection of the seed industry.

09

"Yang's Jinhong No. 1" new kiwifruit plant variety infringement case

[Draft issue]

(2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 211

[Basic facts of the case]

A kiwifruit planting company in Sichuan is the exclusive licensee of the new variety of kiwifruit plants "Yang's Jinhong No. 1", and can protect its rights in its own name with the authorization of the variety right holder. A kiwifruit planting company in Sichuan filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the Shi Kiwifruit Professional Cooperative in Mabian Yi Autonomous County planted 7,000 kiwifruit trees of the authorized variety involved in the case without permission, requesting that the Shi's Kiwifruit Professional Cooperative in Mabian Yi Autonomous County be ordered to pay the license fee until it is no longer planted or until the expiration of the protection period of the variety right.

The court of first instance ruled that the Shi-Mou Kiwifruit Professional Cooperative in Mabian Yi Autonomous County should pay more than 110,000 yuan in variety license fees for the period from December 18, 2019 to July 16, 2021 of a kiwifruit planting company in Sichuan. From July 17, 2021, the license fee shall be paid at the rate of 10 yuan per plant per year until the date of cessation of planting, and the maximum shall not exceed the protection period of the authorized variety; and pay 30,000 yuan for the reasonable expenses of rights protection in this case. The kiwifruit professional cooperative in Mabian Yi Autonomous County was dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the planting behavior of the Shi's kiwifruit professional cooperative in Mabian Yi Autonomous County did not belong to "private non-commercial use", and should be found to be an infringement of the production and propagation of authorized varieties of propagation materials without permission; For perennial plants, the owner of the variety right should be affirmed and encouraged to replace the request for cessation of infringement with a request for payment of royalties. When determining the license fee, it is necessary not only to respect the market value of the authorized variety, but also to ensure the reasonable expected benefits that growers can obtain from planting through diligent work and scientific management. The above-mentioned factors were taken into account in the standard of royalties determined in the first instance and were not improper, and the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

【Typical Significance】

At the same time, according to the litigation claims of the parties, the people's court encouraged the payment of license fees instead of stopping the infringement, which not only effectively protects the legitimate rights of the variety rights holders, but also reasonably takes into account the economic interests of growers, and avoids waste of resources while effectively protecting the intellectual property rights of the seed industry, which is conducive to giving full play to the long-term economic benefits of perennial plants and achieving a win-win situation for all parties.

10. Infringement case of new variety of "Audrey" pepper plant

[Draft issue]

(2023) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 12

[Basic facts of the case]

First, a certain Miao (Beijing) Company is the owner of the variety right of the new variety of "Audrey" pepper plant. Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industry development company once produced, sold and promised to sell "Audrey" new plant variety propagation materials under the name of "Qingjiao 3756". In this regard, a certain seedling (Beijing) company signed an agreement with Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industry development company, stipulating: "Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industry development company promise that from January 1, 2021, they will no longer use, produce and sell seeds and seedlings of the 'Audrey' variety...... If Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industrial development company violate their commitments and obligations under this agreement, they shall pay liquidated damages of 2 million yuan to Xian Miao (Beijing) Company. ”

On April 23, 2021, a certain seedling (Beijing) company notarized and preserved the process of booking "Qingjiao 3756" to an agricultural materials distribution store in Guchengzi Town, Panshan County, as well as several promotional articles published by Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industry development company on its official website, Sohu website and WeChat public account with the name of "He a certain seed seedling company". First, a certain Miao (Beijing) Company filed an infringement lawsuit, requesting that Chifeng, an agricultural high-tech industry development company and an agricultural material distribution store in Guchengzi Town, Panshan County, be ordered to stop the infringement and jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.2 million yuan.

The court of first instance ruled that Chifenghe, an agricultural high-tech industrial development company, and an agricultural materials distribution store in Guchengzi Town, Panshan County, should cease the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200,000 yuan. First, a certain Miao (Beijing) Company was dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the Agreement involved in the case stipulated the liability that Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industrial development company should bear when they infringed again. After the signing of the Agreement, Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industrial development company not only did not stop the infringements that had occurred, but also carried out new infringements, which were obviously infringing with intent. Based on the ascertained facts, it can be inferred that the profits from the infringement of Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industrial development company have exceeded the economic losses claimed by the previous Miao (Beijing) Company by 2 million yuan, and the 2 million yuan agreed upon by the two parties in the agreement should be taken as an important reference in determining the amount of compensation. Chifeng and an agricultural high-tech industrial development company were sentenced to compensate the first Miao (Beijing) Company for economic losses of 2 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 10,000 yuan, and an agricultural materials distribution store in Guchengzi Town, Panshan County, was jointly and severally liable for 200,000 yuan.

【Typical Significance】

This case clarifies that if the infringer and the variety right holder have agreed in advance on the damages for possible infringement in the future, it can be used as an important reference in determining the amount of damages for infringement in subsequent infringement disputes. This adjudication rule is not only conducive to solving the problem of proof of infringement damages, effectively increasing the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders, but also conducive to promoting the honest operation and bona fide performance of seed enterprises.

Source丨Editor of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court丨Nong Caijun Contact Nong Caijun丨18565265490

KNOW MOR