Category: Administrative & Regulatory

FinCEN Eliminates Corporate Transparency Act’s Reporting Obligations for U.S. Persons

On March 21, 2025, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an interim final rule (Interim Rule) that broadly eliminates Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) for all U.S. reporting companies and all U.S. beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies. Under the Interim Rule, which FinCEN is implementing immediately, only companies created under foreign law and registered to do business in the U.S. will be required to submit BOI reports (unless otherwise exempt), and only foreign beneficial owners of such nonexempt foreign entities will be reportable.
Based on FinCEN’s estimates supporting the original BOI Rule (Original Rule), exempting all U.S. reporting companies shrinks the compliance universe by 99.8 percent.
How Did We Get Here?
The CTA whiplash, playing out in courts since early December, took a sharp turn by the government over the last month. On February 18, FinCEN restored the reporting obligations under the Original Rule after the last nationwide injunction against the CTA had been lifted at the government’s request. FinCEN gave reporting companies a grace period for compliance that would have ended, for most companies, on March 21.
Then, on February 27, FinCEN announced that it was suspending CTA enforcement pending a formal extension of the compliance deadlines beyond March 21. On March 2, the U.S. Treasury took this a step further, announcing the total suspension of CTA enforcement against U.S. persons and a rulemaking process “that will narrow the scope of the [BOI] rule to foreign reporting companies only.”
The Interim Rule puts this policy change into effect. The primary legal basis for this “narrowing” is a provision of the CTA that provides a regulatory process by which the U.S. Treasury may, subject to several statutory requirements, create additional exemptions from the BOI reporting obligations. In a court filing made after the March 2 announcement, the government elaborated on the policy change by noting the U.S. Treasury “intends to focus on foreign entities that could engage in illicit transactions from abroad.”
Policy Change or a New CTA?
Congress enacted the CTA to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other serious financial crimes by requiring tens of millions of private companies operating in the U.S. to identify their beneficial owners and disclose to FinCEN personal information about such companies and beneficial owners. FinCEN stores this information in a secure, nonpublic electronic warehouse for law enforcement purposes. Yet, FinCEN pegs the estimated number of reporting companies subject to the Interim Rule at less than 12,000 annually. Supporters of the CTA point to this fact, and findings made by Congress that bad actors conceal their ownership of entities in the U.S. to facilitate illicit transactions, in their criticism of the policy change. We could see judicial scrutiny of the Interim Rule if a plaintiff with legal standing decides to bring a case.
FinCEN is soliciting comments from the public on the Interim Rule, noting it “will assess the exemptions [in the Interim Rule], as appropriate, in light of those comments and intends to issue a final rule this year.” Among other unanswered questions, the Interim Rule does not address how BOI received by FinCEN from U.S. companies and their beneficial owners will be handled – nearly 16 million reports under the Original Rule were submitted to FinCEN prior to March 21.
Expect the CTA Saga to Continue
In addition to potential legal challenges to the Interim Rule, numerous cases challenging the CTA remain on court dockets and will continue to work their way through the legal process. Separately, some state legislatures have shown interest in developing their own versions of the CTA (which could be impacted by the ultimate resolution of the pending cases against the CTA), with New York having adopted the New York LLC Transparency Act (applicable to limited liability companies formed or registered to do business in New York and set to take effect January 1, 2026).

GAO Sustains Protest Over Agency’s Failure to Conduct Price Risk Analysis Under DFARS 252.204-7024

In the recent MicroTechnologies LLC and SMS Data Products Group, Inc. decisions, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained protests challenging the Agency’s failure to perform the required price risk analysis under DFARS 252.204-7024. These cases mark the first time the GAO has addressed the application of the relatively new DFARS provision. 
This article discusses the provision, the GAO’s holdings, and key takeaways for contractors.
DFARS 252.204-7024
In March 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) implemented DFARS 252.204-7024, Use of Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Assessments. DoD’s goal in implementing the provision was to ensure the consideration of price risk, item risk, and supplier risk “when determining contractor responsibility” DFARS Final Rule: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Use of Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Assessments (DFARS Case 2019-D009) 88 Fed. Reg. 17336 (Mar. 22, 2023).
The DFARS provision—which is applicable to most DoD solicitations for supplies and services—requires a contracting officer to “consider SPRS risk assessments during the evaluation of quotations or offers received” in response to the solicitation, as follows:

Item risk will be considered to determine whether the procurement represents a high performance risk to the Government.
Price risk will be considered in determining if a proposed price is consistent with historical prices paid for a product or a service or otherwise creates a risk to the Government.
Supplier risk, including but not limited to quality and delivery, will be considered to assess the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk.

DFARS 252.204-7024(c)(1)-(3). The provision also provides that “[t]he Contracting Officer may consider any other available and relevant information when evaluating a quotation or an offer.” DFARS 252.204-7024(e).
To consider these risks, contracting officers are required to utilize the SPRS. The SPRS gathers, processes, and displays data about supplier performance and determines the risk associated with the contractor.
The GAO’s Ruling on DFARS 252.204-7024
On March 24, 2024, the Department of the Air Force issued a fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) for the Combined Air and Space Center Operations Center (CAOC) communications support for the U.S. Air Force Central Command MicroTechnologies LLC,B-423197.2, Mar. 4, 2025, 2025 WL 831122 at *2. The FOPR incorporated DFARS 252.204-7024 and required the Agency to conduct a supplier and price risk analysis. Id. at *3. Both MicroTechnologies, LLC (MicroTech) and SMS Data Products Group, Inc. (SMS) submitted proposals. The record in the protest showed that, during the evaluation, the Agency performed a limited supplier risk analysis but failed to perform a price risk analysis. SMS Data Products Group, Inc., B-423197, Mar. 4, 2025, 2025 WL 831119 at *9. Both MicroTech and SMS protested the Agency’s failure in this regard under DFARS 252.204-7024.
The record confirmed that the Agency had not performed a price risk analysis in the SPRS system. The Agency argued that the SPRS did not have the proper data to conduct a price analysis, and that it considered “other available and relevant information” in lieu of performing a price risk analysis. MicroTechnologies LLC, 2025 WL 831119 at *9. Specifically, the Agency claimed that it relied on price analysis techniques listed in the Solicitation, FAR 15.404-1, to satisfy the DFARS requirement. Id.
In both cases, the GAO did not definitively determine whether the Agency could substitute its own price analysis in lieu of the required SPRS price analysis, nor did it confirm whether the price risk information was available to the Agency in the SPRS system. However, the GAO sustained both protests on the grounds that the Agency’s underlying price analysis was flawed. See generally id. As a result, the Agency could not “rely on an unreasonable price evaluation under the FAR to satisfy the DFARS requirement.” Id. The GAO found that the Agency 1) failed to perform the required SPRS price analysis and 2) relied on an unreasonable underlying price evaluation to satisfy the DFARS provision. 
What This Means for Contractors
The GAO’s decisions in MicroTechnologies and SMS marks the first instances in which the GAO sustained a challenge based on the agency’s failure to conduct a proper risk analysis as required by DFARS 252.204-7024. Going forward, contractors should ensure that the agency is conducting the required item, price, and/or supplier risk analyses as part of its evaluation process.
Additionally, contractors should monitor their data in SPRS. Contractors are permitted to access their own supplier, vendor, and awardee company data on the SPRS. If the data is wrong, contractors can challenge the information in the SPRS.

FTC’s Consumer Protection Agenda Thus Far Under President Trump

As contemplated by FTC defense lawyer in December 2024, the Federal Trade Commission’s operations during the first two months under the second Trump Administration have been chaotic. Unsurprisingly, the policy focus appears to be de-regulation and an enforcement focus on bread-and-butter fraud and deception (for example and without limitation, bogus business opportunity offers, unsubstantiated earnings claims and unlaw debt collection), privacy, telemarketing, big technology moderation and the protection of competition in labor markets.
Last week, President Trump fired the remaining two Democratic commissioners. Both have stated that they believe their termination is unlawful and may challenge the dismissals judicially. Two Republican commissioners remain to make regulatory, investigation and enforcement-related decisions.
The Federal Trade Commission has traditionally been considered an independent agency. However, President Trump recent issued an Executive Order seeking to vest control of various federal agencies and financial regulator within his control, including the FTC. In doing so, the Trump administration seemingly seeks to exert some degree of control over the strategic priorities of the agencies and regulators.
Historically, an FTC commissioner may only be removed by the President for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” In fact, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that FTC commissioners cannot be removed over policy differences.
Importantly, however, in Selia Law v. CFPB (2019), the Supreme Court held that restricting removal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director to “for cause” only is unconstitutional. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred and criticized the Humphrey’s Executor decision. It is anticipated that, if challenged, the Trump Administration will rely upon the Selia Law decision in support of its position that the removal of the FTC commissioners is constitutional.
Many have noticed a considerable shift in consumer protection investigation and enforcement-related activities. A few new enforcement matters have been initiated in 2025 whilst one or more investigations and lawsuits have been paused. Whether the current slowdown is temporary while the agency aligns its priorities with the new administration’s policies, or is an indication of a more significant long term shift remains to be seen.
Also noteworthy is a brief recently filed in the Eighth Circuit by the FTC defending the “Click to Cancel” Negative Option Rule. Numerous business groups have filed challenges to the rule in federal court. Many have speculated the “Click to Cancel” Rule would face significant challenges by the Trump administration. The “Click to Cancel” Rule’s misrepresentation restrictions are already effective and the remainder of the rule is supposed to become effective in May 2025.

What Vice Chancellor Strine Got Wrong In Massey Energy Co.

Vice Chancellor Leo Strine famously wrote that “Delaware law does not charter law breakers”. In re Massey Energy Co., 2011 WL 2176479, at *20 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2011). Professor William J. Moon picks up on this theme in a forthcoming essay, Havens for Corporate Lawbreaking:
Yet even the fiercest defenders of the firm’s profit motive concede that the corporation’s profit-seeking function cannot justify breaking the law. As a matter of American corporate law, directors and officers are in breach of their fiduciary duties if they facilitate or engage in profit-maximizing illegal activities. Or so we thought.

Professor Moon’s essay calls out Nevada and the Cayman Islands as “corporate lawbreaking havens”. But are Vice Chancellor Strine and Professor Moon correct that Delaware does not charter corporate lawbreakers? I think not.
In JCCrandall, LLC v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 328 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828, 831 (Ct. App. 2025), review denied and ordered not to be officially published (Mar. 19, 2025), a California Court of Appeal pointed out the cannabis is illegal:
It is often said that cannabis is legal in California. The statement is not true. Under federal law, cannabis is illegal in every state and territory of the United States. (See Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. § 812 (c)(10); City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 377, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656.) Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, provides in part, “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Therefore, any Delaware corporation engaged in the cannabis trade is potentially violating the law. Are the directors and officers of these corporation breaching their fiduciary duties when they allow the corporation to engage in the business for which it was formed?
It might be argued that Vice Chancellor Strine was referring only to Delaware law, but the Massey case involved violations of federal law. Thus, it cannot be said that he was referring only to state laws. Does this mean that Delaware charters the breakers of some laws? If so, how do directors and officers know which violations will support a breach of fiduciary duty claim and which will not? 
More fundamentally, the immensity and complexity of state and federal laws and regulations mean that it impossible for most corporations to comply fully with all laws and regulations. Therefore, Delaware does indeed charter law breakers. This is most certainly true.

OFSI Takes Enforcement Action Against UK Charities

On 14 March 2025, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) issued a “Disclosure” against UK-registered and regulated charities Sahara Hands, Peculiar Peoples’ Palace Ministries, and Impact Planet for breaching Regulation 36 (6) of the Counter Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the Regulations) by failing to respond to OFSI’s requests for information (RFI).
In accordance with the Regulations, OFSI can request information from any person if it believes that person can provide details to establish (a) the nature, amount, or quantity of any funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person; or (b) the nature, amount, or quantity of any funds, economic resources or financial services made available to or for the benefit of a designated person; or (c) the nature of any financial transactions entered into by a designated person. This information must be provided where OFSI believes it is necessary for monitoring compliance, detecting evasion, and investigating financial offenses under Part 3 of the Regulations. Information must be provided within a specified or reasonable time, or in accordance with any ongoing obligations.
OFSI made several attempts to contact the charities via email and post, but no response was received within the stated timeframes from any of the charities, which, according to OFSI, hindered its ability to monitor compliance with the Regulations.
OFSI assessed the breach as moderately severe, though it did not warrant a monetary penalty. Publishing details of the financial sanctions breach via the Disclosure regime was considered the suitable enforcement response, given the specific nature and circumstances of the violation. The Disclosure highlights that the charities’ failure to respond to the RFIs, despite OFSI’s repeated attempts at communication, and the importance of the RFIs for monitoring compliance with the Regulations, were aggravating factors in its decision. Although OFSI acknowledged that a failure by the charities to update their contact information could be viewed as a mitigating factor, it ultimately did not accept this as a valid excuse.
The Disclosure confirmed that all other charities contacted by OFSI complied with the Regulations by responding to the RFI. However, OFSI noted that it had identified multiple charities where contact information was not updated, or incoming correspondence was not regularly monitored. OFSI recommended that charities ensure contact information is up to date and incoming correspondence is regularly monitored.
Takeaway
The Disclosure highlights the investigative steps taken by OFSI and its commitment to enforcement beyond merely relying on self-reports.

West Virginia Set to Ban Certain Food Additives and Colors

On March 19, 2025, the West Virginia Senate and House sent HB 2354 to the governor for final approval, which proposes banning various food additives and synthetic dyes.
The bill would prohibit the sale of any food product in the state that contains butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), propylparaben, Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, or Green No. 3. If enacted, the legislation would apply to food products in school nutrition programs beginning August 1, 2025, then extend to all food products in the state on January 1, 2028.
While there was some push back arguing that the state should wait for changes to come top down from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the ban will cause food prices to go up or limit the competitiveness of the state, the voting pattern shows that the opposition was minimal. This article by West Virginia Watch stated that Senator Barrett, who spearheaded the effort, feels confident that the Governor will sign HB 2354.
The West Virginia bill is the latest state legislative effort to regulate food dyes, following California, Utah, Florida, and Virginia.

Health Fitness, OCR’s Risk Analysis Initiative, and the ERISA Fiduciary Duty to Select Plan Service Providers

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced the fifth enforcement action under its Risk Analysis Initiative. In this case, OCR reached a settlement with Health Fitness Corporation (Health Fitness), a wellness vendor providing services to employer-sponsored group health plans.
This announcement is interesting for several reasons. It furthers the OCR’s Risk Analysis Initiative. The enforcement action is a reminder to business associates about HIPAA compliance. The development also points to a significant development under ERISA for plan fiduciaries and service providers to their plans.
The OCR Risk Analysis Initiative
Anyone who takes a look at prior OCR enforcement actions will notice several trends. One of those trends relates to enforcement actions following a data breach. In those cases, the OCR frequently alleges the target of the action failed to satisfy the risk analysis standard under the Security Rule. This standard is fundamental – it involves assessing the threats and vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information (ePHI), a process that helps to shape the covered entity or business associate’s approach to the other standards, and goes beyond a simply gap analysis.
“Conducting an accurate and thorough risk analysis is not only required but is also the first step to prevent or mitigate breaches of electronic protected health information,” said OCR Acting Director Anthony Archeval. “Effective cybersecurity includes knowing who has access to electronic health information and ensuring that it is secure.”
For those wondering how committed the OCR is to its enforcement initiatives, you need not look further than its Right to Access Initiative. On March 6, 2025, the agency announced its 53rd enforcement action. According to that announcement, it involved a $200,000 civil monetary penalty imposed against a public academic health center and research university for violating an individual’s right to timely access her medical records through a personal representative.
The DOL Cybersecurity Rule
Businesses that sponsor a group health plan or other ERISA employee benefit plans might want to review the OCR’s announcement and resolution agreement concerning Health Fitness a little more carefully. In 2024, the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued Compliance Assistance Release No. 2024-01. That release makes clear that the fiduciary obligation to assess the cybersecurity of plan service providers applies to all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, including wellness programs for group health plans.
OCR commenced it investigation of Health Fitness after receiving four reports from Health Fitness, over a three-month period (October 15, 2018, to January 25, 2019), of breaches of PHI. According to the OCR, “Health Fitness reported that beginning approximately in August 2015, ePHI became discoverable on the internet and was exposed to automated search devices (web crawlers) resulting from a software misconfiguration on the server housing the ePHI.” Despite these breaches, according to the OCR, Health Fitness had failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis, until January 19, 2024.
For Health Fitness, it agreed to implement a corrective action plan that OCR will monitor for two years and paid $227,816 to OCR. For ERISA plan fiduciaries, an important question is what they need to do to assess the cybersecurity of plan service providers like Health Fitness during the procurement process and beyond.
We provide some thoughts in our earlier article and want to emphasize that plan fiduciaries need to be involved in the process. Cybersecurity is often a risk left to the IT department. However, doing so may leave even the most ardent IT professional ill equipped or insufficiently informed about the threats and vulnerabilities of the particular service provider. When it come to ERISA plans, this means properly assessing the threats and vulnerabilities as they relate to the aspects of plan administration being handled by the service provider.
Third-party plan service providers and plan fiduciaries should begin taking reasonable and prudent steps to implement safeguards that will adequately protect plan data. EBSA’s guidance should help the responsible parties get there, along with the plan fiduciaries and plan sponsors’ trusted counsel and other advisors.

What California Employers Should Consider When Buying or Selling a Business

The purchase or sale of a business in California involves intricate legal considerations, particularly regarding the rights of and responsibilities to employees. Both the buyer and seller need to consider employment ramifications.
For Buyers:
As the new employer, the buyer will need to comply with a host of California requirements and disclosures. Employers new to California should pay special attention to regulatory requirements and may wish to consider arbitration agreements, employee handbooks, meal and rest break policies, timekeeping requirements, and other California-specific obligations. If the acquisition involves a reduction in force, additional considerations will be necessary. Finally, the acquirer may inherit existing policies and practices that could subject them to liability.
For Sellers:
Sellers also need to consider their obligations. Sellers of a business with employees should carefully manage the transition to ensure compliance with state requirements. This involves:

Providing written notices to employees about the sale and its implications.
Ensuring clear communication regarding any termination of employment.
Securing express written consent from employees if there is any intention to transfer obligations to the new business owner.

It is essential, whether buying or selling a business with employees, for business owners to consult with experienced employment lawyers. This ensures compliance with employment laws and helps mitigate potential risks.

FDA Plans to Extend Compliance Date for Food Traceability Rule

On March 20, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its intention to extend the compliance date for the Food Traceability Rule by 30 months. This extension aims to provide the food industry with additional time to fully implement the rule’s requirements.
The Food Traceability Rule, established under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA), mandates enhanced traceability recordkeeping for entities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold foods listed on the Food Traceability List (FTL) for the purpose of promptly identifying and removing potentially contaminated food from the market.
Notably, in its announcement, FDA made clear that the substance of the rule remains intact, and the only modification is extending the compliance deadline. The agency will continue to work with stakeholders to provide additional assistance and resources to address challenges with implementation.

CNIPA and 6 Other Chinese Government Bodies Issue Opinions on Further Improving the Business Environment in the Field of Intellectual Property – New Trademark Law Coming?

On March 21, 2025, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and 6 other government bodies released the “Opinions of the State Intellectual Property Office, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the State Financial Regulatory Administration, the National Copyright Administration and the Chinese Academy of Sciences on further optimizing the business environment in the field of intellectual property” (国家知识产权局 教育部 科技部 市场监管总局 金融监管总局 国家版权局 中国科学院关于进一步优化知识产权领域营商环境的意见).
Some highlights include:

performing in-depth credit evaluation of patent and trademark agencies, and promptly disclose the evaluation results of agencies and practitioners to provide guidance for enterprises and the public to choose agencies;
standardize the standards and procedures for the identification and listing of serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights, and impose penalties on serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and regulations;
formulate licensing guidelines for standard essential patents, promote fair and reasonable licensing of standard essential patents, and prevent companies from using standard essential patents to implement monopoly behavior;
establish a special database on standard essential patents to facilitate access to information on standard essential patents;
accelerate the revision and deliberation of the new round of trademark law and its implementing regulations, strengthen the obligation to use trademarks, and further strengthen the regulation of malicious preemptive registration and other behaviors;
issue typical cases of abnormal patent applications to guide the improvement of patent quality; and
strictly restrain behaviors that disrupt market order such as vicious low-price competition.

The original text is available here. A translation follows.
To the competent departments for intellectual property, education, science and technology, market supervision, and copyright of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, all regulatory bureaus of the Financial Regulatory Administration, and all units under the Chinese Academy of Sciences:
This Opinion is formulated to thoroughly implement the decisions and arrangements of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on optimizing the business environment and the overall requirements for intellectual property work, promptly respond to the expectations of the public and business entities, continuously reduce institutional transaction costs, further strengthen policy support and service guarantees for business entities, help create a first-class business environment, and better promote high-quality development.
I. General requirements
Guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, we will adhere to the combination of problem-oriented and goal-oriented approaches, adhere to the dual-wheel drive of institutional innovation and digital empowerment, and work together online and offline. We will benchmark against international advanced practices and experience, take creating a first-class business environment as the main line, promote the market-oriented, law-based, internationalized and convenient development of the business environment in the field of intellectual property rights, focus on the needs of innovation and development and the concerns of business entities, further optimize the business environment in the field of intellectual property rights, better play the institutional role of intellectual property rights in stimulating innovation internally and promoting openness externally, and fully stimulate the endogenous motivation and vitality of innovation and creation of various entities.
By 2027, the marketization, legalization, internationalization and facilitation of the business environment in the field of intellectual property will be significantly improved, the overall quality of intellectual property creation, utilization efficiency, protection effectiveness, management level and service capabilities will be improved, intellectual property government services will be further optimized, the satisfaction and sense of gain of enterprises and the public will continue to increase, and the role of the business environment in the field of intellectual property in promoting high-quality development will be more prominent.
II. Improve the market-oriented mechanism of intellectual property rights and help build a high-standard market system
(I) Improve the incentive mechanism for intellectual property innovation. Improve the distribution system oriented towards increasing the value of knowledge, expand the autonomy of universities and research institutes in disposing intellectual property through transfer, licensing or investment, and promote the realization of intellectual property value. Strengthen the standardized management of service inventions, deepen the reform of empowering service scientific and technological achievements, improve the intellectual property income distribution mechanism with equal rights and obligations among units, scientific researchers and technology transfer institutions, and improve the due diligence exemption and fault tolerance mechanism for patent transformation. Promote the deep integration of industry, academia and research, strengthen guidance on the formulation of intellectual property-related clauses in industry-university-research cooperation agreements, and guide all parties to reasonably agree on the organizational form of cooperation, division of tasks, capital investment, ownership of intellectual property rights, distribution of rights and interests, risk sharing and liability for breach of contract. Support universities and research institutions in establishing intellectual property management funds and operating funds. (The Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, the National Intellectual Property Administration, the National Copyright Administration, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences are responsible according to their respective duties)
(II) Promote the healthy and orderly development of the intellectual property service industry. Actively promote the supervision of patent agency delegation, entrust the supervision functions of provincial patent agencies to the municipal (districts under the jurisdiction of municipalities directly under the Central Government) level, and strengthen grassroots supervision. Carry out in-depth credit evaluation of patent and trademark agencies, and promptly disclose the evaluation results of agencies and practitioners to provide guidance for enterprises and the public to choose agencies. Strengthen the standardized management of the copyright agency industry. Strengthen administrative law enforcement, credit supervision and punishment for breach of trust for illegal and irregular intellectual property agency behaviors in accordance with laws and regulations. Improve the relevant self-discipline rules for intellectual property agencies, strictly restrain behaviors that disrupt market order such as vicious low-price competition and improper promises, and maintain a good industry ecology. (The State Administration for Market Regulation, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(III) Improve the market-oriented pricing and trading mechanism of intellectual property rights. Improve the intellectual property value assessment standards, continuously publish patent implementation license statistics and copyright registration data, and guide patent holders to scientifically, fairly and reasonably estimate license royalties. Carry out internal assessment pilot projects for bank intellectual property pledge financing, and guide financial institutions to improve their independent assessment capabilities. Encourage innovation in financial products such as intellectual property insurance and credit guarantees, and give full play to the role of financial support for intellectual property transformation. Accelerate the establishment and improvement of the intellectual property trading market, improve the liquidity and disposal convenience of intellectual property assets, and promote standardized intellectual property transactions. (The Financial Supervision Administration, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(IV) Strengthen the coordinated protection of intellectual property rights. Increase the protection of original innovation of private small, medium and micro enterprises. Strengthen the administrative law enforcement protection of intellectual property rights, and crack down on intellectual property infringements in accordance with the law. Improve the linkage of intellectual property administrative adjudication and infringement rapid processing mechanisms such as the transfer of intellectual property administrative adjudication cases, assistance in investigations, and delivery of execution, as well as the rapid coordinated protection mechanism of central-local cooperation. Improve the intellectual property credit supervision system, standardize the standards and procedures for the identification of the list of serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights, and impose penalties on serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and regulations. Relying on the national enterprise credit information disclosure system, strengthen the collection and disclosure of information such as trademarks, patents, intellectual property pledge registrations, enterprise-related administrative licenses, and administrative penalties. Strengthen anti-monopoly supervision and law enforcement, prevent and stop the abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition, protect fair competition in the market, and promote innovation and development. (The State Administration for Market Regulation, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(V) Promote collaborative innovation between standards and patents. Strengthen the linkage between patent examination and standard setting, formulate policy guidelines for patents related to promotion standards, and guide innovation entities to integrate their own intellectual property rights into technical standards. Formulate licensing guidelines for standard essential patents, promote fair and reasonable licensing of standard essential patents, and prevent companies from using standard essential patents to implement monopoly behavior. Establish a special database on standard essential patents to facilitate access to information on standard essential patents. (The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
III. Strengthen legal protection of intellectual property rights to better support comprehensive innovation
(VI) Improve intellectual property laws and regulations. Accelerate the revision and deliberation of the new round of trademark law and its implementing regulations, strengthen the obligation to use trademarks, and further strengthen the regulation of malicious preemptive registration and other behaviors. Accelerate the revision of supporting regulations for the Copyright Law. Improve the regulations on integrated circuit layout design. Promote special legislation for geographical indications, and improve a unified geographical indication protection system that coordinates special protection with trademark protection. Guide and strengthen the construction of the local intellectual property law system. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for the division of responsibilities)
(VII) Improve the rules for intellectual property protection in new areas. Promote research on intellectual property protection rules in cutting-edge technology fields, and do a good job in intellectual property protection in emerging fields. Carry out pilot work on data intellectual property rights in depth, and accelerate the establishment of data intellectual property protection rules. Explore and improve open source standards and specifications, study and formulate information technology open source intellectual property compliance standards, open source community code contribution rules and standards, and improve the level of open source intellectual property protection. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(VIII) Innovate the diversified examination model for patents and trademarks. Comprehensively use various examination models such as priority examination to serve the key core technology research and development. According to the needs of regional development and local key industries, further expand the pre-examination field of local intellectual property protection centers to better meet the needs of innovative entities for rapid patent confirmation and pre-examination. Optimize the rapid examination model for trademark registration applications, allow rapid examination of graphic trademarks, improve the implementation of priority examination decisions in trademark rejection reviews and objection applications, and better support parties to quickly safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. Accelerate the establishment of a trademark examination collaboration evaluation mechanism to continuously improve the quality and efficiency of examinations. (The State Intellectual Property Office is responsible)
(IX) Improve the patent and trademark examination rules. Issue the “Patent Application Guidelines” and typical cases of abnormal patent applications to guide the improvement of patent quality. Deepen the agency quality monitoring and trigger-type supervision mechanism with the rectification of abnormal patent applications as the core, and achieve precise crackdowns and precise policies. Promote the establishment of a conflict resolution mechanism for corporate names, abbreviations and trademark rights, and increase regulatory efforts. On the premise of ensuring data security, promote the sharing of patent, trademark information and business entity information, deepen the coordination between trademark examination and business entity registration in the business field, explore the establishment of a registered trademark marking and disposal mechanism for the demise of the right holder, release trademark registration resources in a timely manner, and help solve the problem of difficult trademark registration. (The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible according to their respective duties)
(10) Improve the copyright registration system and mechanism. Promote the establishment of a unified national copyright registration system, and further standardize the registration of works, computer software copyright registration, copyright pledge registration, foreign-related copyright contract registration, copyright exclusive license use contract and transfer contract filing. Refine copyright registration standards, study and build a copyright data service information platform, improve the level of copyright registration digitization, gradually realize online copyright registration, improve copyright registration publicity query, data submission and statistical analysis systems, promote the integration of copyright registration, query, monitoring and protection, and provide better quality and convenient services for the development of related industries. (National Copyright Administration is responsible)
IV. Improving the internationalization level of intellectual property services and effectively promoting opening up
(XI) Deepen international exchanges in the field of public services. Continue to strengthen cooperation with intellectual property examination institutions of various countries and deepen the sharing of examination information. Promote cooperation on intellectual property information and data resource projects with countries and regions participating in the joint construction of the “Belt and Road”. Support qualified Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISCs) to carry out international exchanges on public services of intellectual property information. Encourage high-level foreign institutions to provide intellectual property services in China. Deepen international cooperation on geographical indications, encourage research on foreign language versions of geographical indication-related standards, and enhance the international influence of China’s geographical indication brands. Guide and support Chinese companies to enhance the added value and competitiveness of trademark brands, improve the international operation capabilities of trademark brands, and shape a good image of Chinese trademark brands. Continue to strengthen cooperation with copyright departments of various countries to enhance the influence and voice of copyright. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(XII) Strengthen guidance on overseas intellectual property dispute response. Encourage local governments to set up intellectual property guidance stations in countries and regions with intensive trade exchanges. Rely on overseas intellectual property dispute response guidance sub-centers to provide enterprises with professional and efficient overseas dispute response guidance services. Organize a list of key export enterprises by industry and increase assistance in rights protection. Support insurance institutions to develop and launch more overseas intellectual property insurance products, promote the establishment of overseas intellectual property rights protection assistance funds, and help enterprises reduce rights protection costs. Timely collect and publish information on foreign intellectual property legal systems, build a database of foreign intellectual property litigation cases, conduct typical case analysis and research, and provide information support for enterprises to deal with foreign-related intellectual property disputes. Increase the cultivation of foreign-related intellectual property legal service institutions, strengthen the construction of foreign-related intellectual property legal talent teams, and enhance the professionalism and pertinence of enterprises’ overseas dispute response guidance. (The Financial Regulatory Administration, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
V. Promote the convenience of government services for intellectual property rights and enhance the benefits to enterprises and the public
(XIII) Promote the optimization of service processes and innovation of models. Continue to reduce the processing cycle of patent and trademark changes. Under normal circumstances, changes in recorded items involving the transfer of patent rights should be reviewed within 1 month, and trademark transfers and changes should be reviewed for the first time within 40 days and 20 days respectively. Fully implement the notification and commitment process in the reduction of patent fees, improve the post-verification and risk prevention mechanism, and further facilitate business and public affairs. Relying on the resource aggregation advantages of regional government service centers and government service platforms, promote the “one form application, one set of materials, and one window acceptance” for changes in enterprise registration matters and trademark changes, explore the integrated processing of other departments’ businesses that have a strong correlation between intellectual property business and the entire life cycle of enterprises, and provide more “one-stop service for one type of affairs” services for enterprises and the public. Standardize the government service hotline of the National Intellectual Property Administration, continuously improve the hotline connection rate and the ability level of responding personnel, establish and improve the “handle complaints immediately” mechanism, better play the role of the service hotline as a window directly facing enterprises and the public, and promptly understand problems and suggestions and respond to the demands of enterprises and the public. (The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible according to their respective duties)
(XIV) Deepen the digital empowerment of public services. Relying on the national intellectual property protection information platform and copyright-related information platforms, build an exclusive service space for rights holders to facilitate one-click query of all patents, trademarks, copyrights, geographical indications, and integrated circuit layout design information under their names, and timely push reminders of payment deadlines, service progress and other information. Explore the application of technologies such as natural language large models to improve the intention recognition and accurate answering capabilities of online intelligent customer service, optimize intelligent question and answer, intelligent search, intelligent guidance and other services, and better guide enterprises and the public to handle affairs efficiently and conveniently. Accelerate the construction of a national intellectual property digital comprehensive public service platform, deepen data sharing and business collaboration in the fields of intellectual property and economy, science and technology, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection, market supervision, etc., further promote the sharing and application of intellectual property electronic certificates and licenses data, and realize the interoperability and mutual recognition of electronic certificates and licenses across regions and departments. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(XV) Optimize the public intellectual property rights service system that is convenient for the people and beneficial to enterprises. Continue to improve the public intellectual property rights service network, further enhance the service efficiency of the National Intellectual Property Rights Information Service Center (TISC) of Colleges and Universities and the National Intellectual Property Rights Information Public Service Outlets, and strengthen service support for strategic scientific and technological forces and key industries. Support public intellectual property rights service institutions to set up service stations in key industrial parks and science and technology parks to achieve full coverage of key parks for public intellectual property rights services. Issue national standards for public intellectual property rights services, and promote the non-discriminatory acceptance and handling of intellectual property rights business across the country with the same standards. Strengthen trademark and brand public services, conduct trademark information analysis and utilization, and guide and support public service institutions to increase service support for regional brand building and corporate brand development. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(XVI) Standardize the evaluation of services. Improve the regular government-enterprise communication mechanism, conduct an evaluation of the satisfaction of intellectual property public services, launch an online “good and bad reviews” system for intellectual property government services, and promptly publish the evaluation results to form a service evaluation mechanism that connects the entire process of evaluation, rectification, feedback, and supervision. Adhere to the orientation of high-quality development, optimize the design of evaluation indicators related to intellectual property, and do not directly include quantitative indicators such as intellectual property registration authorization, transfer transactions, etc. into the evaluation indicators, and accelerate the transformation of intellectual property work from pursuing quantity to improving quality. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
VI. Organizational Guarantee
The National Intellectual Property Administration will work with relevant departments to strengthen work coordination, improve work mechanisms, deepen data sharing, ensure that various reform measures are fully implemented, and adopt various forms to interpret policies, guide public opinion, and summarize experiences. Focusing on the achievements of building a first-class business environment in the field of intellectual property, timely sort out and summarize, publicize and promote typical experiences and innovative practices in optimizing the business environment, and carry out various forms of publicity and reporting to create a good social atmosphere and public opinion atmosphere. All regions should implement the work well, and at the same time, in light of the actual development of the region, actively reform and innovate, and take the lead in trials to promote more breakthroughs in optimizing the business environment in the field of intellectual property.

California Employers, Don’t Forget Your Annual Workplace Violence Prevention Plan Responsibilities!

California employers should begin preparing to comply with their annual requirements under the workplace violence prevention law, California’s Labor Code 6401.9 (commonly known as SB 553), including retraining their staff and reviewing their workplace violence prevention plans.
The law has several annual requirements for employers, including:

Reviewing their plan at least annually, including for its effectiveness and employee involvement in the plan.
Providing effective training at least annually on all the law’s requirements, including the plan itself (which would mean any changes an employer made during the annual review), how to report workplace violence incidents and workplace violence hazards.

SB 553 went into effect on July 1, 2024, including the training requirement. Because California employers had to scramble to create a workplace violence prevention plan and train their employees on it, many employers created their plan and completed their training before SB 553’s July 1, 2024, effective date. That means the annual deadline to review the plan and retrain employees is likely right around the corner.
Don’t be fooled by the law’s provision on “additional training” — this is only training for any “new or previously unrecognized hazard.” All the workplace violence prevention training that employers gave last year must be repeated.
Cal/OSHA is considering a draft regulation on how to implement the law, which it must propose by Dec. 31, 2025. The next few months will tell how far Cal/OSHA intends to go with adopting stringent regulatory requirements, many of which were purposefully left out of the text of the law.

China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases Fifth Batch of Typical Cases of Seed Industry Intellectual Property Protection

On March 19, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Fifth Batch of Typical Cases of Seed Industry Intellectual Property Protection By People’s Courts (人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例 (第五批)). The Fifth Batch includes 15 typical cases of judicial protection of seed industry IP concluded in 2024  including 13 civil cases, 1 administrative case and 1 criminal case.  While not a common law system, China uses typical cases to “guide” the lower courts and public.
The SPC provided brief explanations of the cases and relevance as follows. The original text with links to the full decisions is available here (Chinese only).

Case 1. “Gangyou 188” new rice plant variety infringement case

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Gan XX Industrial Company and Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and Lei XX]
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终3165号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Gan XX Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new rice plant variety “Gangyou 188”. It filed an infringement lawsuit, claiming that the “Gangyou 88” seeds produced and sold by Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and sold by Lei XX infringed its variety rights, and requested that the two companies be ordered to stop the infringement, Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than 15.14 million RMB, and Lei XX bear joint and several liability for reasonable expenses. Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company argued that it had obtained the production and operation rights of the approved variety “Gangyou 88” through legal transfer, and at the time of transfer, it had conducted authenticity appraisal of the “Gangyou 88” it used and had fulfilled its reasonable review obligations, so it should not bear compensation liability. After the administrative agency and the first instance court commissioned appraisals respectively, the alleged infringing seeds “Gangyou 88” produced and sold by Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and sold by Lei XX were identical to the standard sample of the approved variety, and were similar to the authorized variety “Gangyou 188”. The court of first instance determined that Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and Lei XX did not infringe the law based on the fact that the alleged infringing seed “Gangyou 88” was identical to its approved standard sample. Gan XX Industrial Company filed an appeal.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that there are differences between variety approval and variety authorization in terms of application procedures and system purposes. Whether the alleged infringing seeds are identical to the standard samples of the approved varieties has no relevance to whether they are identical to the characteristics and properties of the authorized varieties for protection. Unless otherwise provided by laws and administrative regulations, the production, reproduction, and sale of authorized variety propagation materials without the permission of the variety right holder constitutes infringement of variety rights. If the alleged infringing seeds belong to the approved varieties, he can claim the corresponding contractual liability from the transferor based on the contractual relationship, but cannot use this to counter the infringement claim of the variety right holder. If there are multiple license transfers of the infringing approved varieties, unless there is evidence that the alleged infringer has not used the seeds, the infringement time can be calculated from the date on which he acquired the variety in principle. Based on this, the second instance changed the judgment ordering Chongqing Non XX Industrial Company and Lei XX to stop the infringement, Chongqing Non XX. Industrial Company must compensate for losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling more than 5.96 million RMB, and Lei XX was responsible for reasonable expenses for rights protection of 6,288 RMB.
【Typical significance】
This case clearly stipulates that the transferee of the approved variety shall bear legal responsibility for any act that constitutes infringement of the variety rights in the production and operation of the approved variety, which not only provides strong protection for the variety rights holder, but also effectively regulates the seed industry market. This case serves as a warning to seed operators to standardize their operations throughout the entire process of variety authorization, variety approval, and variety production promotion, in order to promote awareness of variety rights protection. The second instance judgment has reference significance in clarifying the legal nature of the approved variety, clarifying the method of infringement judgment, and reasonably determining compensation.

Case 2. “Sailete” apple new plant variety temporary protection period royalties and infringement case

[Dispute between Yin XX company and You XX company regarding temporary protection period royalties and infringement of new plant variety rights]
First instance: 甘肃省兰州市中级人民法院（2023）甘01知民初9号
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终3113号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
The “Sailete” apple variety was selected and bred by a research institute company in New Zealand and obtained the plant variety rights in China. Ying XX International Company is an interested party in the variety rights of “Sailete”. They have filed a lawsuit claiming that You XX Agricultural Company has been producing, breeding, and selling “Sailete” breeding materials without permission since 2018, and has sold a large amount of apple fruits harvested from them, which constitutes infringement. They request an order to stop the infringement, to inactivate the infringing materials, and to apply punitive damages of 5 million RMB. The You XX Agricultural Company believes that its planting of fruit trees does not constitute production or reproduction, and that planting fruit trees only for the purpose of obtaining apple fruits rather than specifically cultivating seedlings and does not constitute infringement. Even if it is determined to constitute infringement, it should not be ordered to inactivate the fruit trees, let alone determine the compensation amount based on the sales volume of apple fruits. After appraisal, it was found that the branches of the “Aifei” fruit tree purchased by Yin XX company from You XX agricultural company through notarization are identical to the “Sailete” variety. You XX agricultural company did not provide evidence that its fruit trees have a legal source.
[Judgment Result]
The Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province ruled at first instance that You XX Agricultural Company should inactivate all infringing propagation materials (plants, branches, etc.), and at the same time applied double punitive damages, and ordered You XX Agricultural Company to compensate for losses, temporary protection period usage fees and reasonable expenses totaling 3.3 million RMB. You XX Agricultural Company appealed.
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that in the process of planting and obtaining “Sailete” apples by You XX Agricultural Company, a large number of saplings and branches must have been propagated. Based on the evidence in this case, it can be reasonably inferred that it has been engaged in the continuous production and propagation of authorized variety propagation materials. You XX agricultural company plants saplings of the “Sailete” variety for profit, sells a large number of apple fruits, and engages in propagation behavior. Its planting behavior should be recognized as production and reproduction behavior. It not only produces and reproduces apple seedlings, but also sells apple fruits. The act of selling harvested materials is a natural extension of the production and propagation of authorized varieties of breeding materials in the chain of time and obtaining illegal benefits, and should be considered as a whole. When determining the amount of compensation, the principle of comprehensive compensation should be followed, and the profits obtained from selling harvested materials should be used as a reference for infringement profits. Inactivating the breeding materials of infringing varieties is an effective measure and a natural means to stop infringement. When determining the specific responsibility for ceasing infringement, based on the characteristics of the accused infringing variety’s long-term growth and asexual reproduction, if the infringing propagation materials are not inactivated, the infringing plants may survive for a long time and have the risk of spreading. Compared to the method of removing seedlings and replanting them, the right holder’s claim to stop infringement by inactivating the scion and grafting non infringing varieties of scions can better balance the interests of all parties and should be supported. The appeal was dismissed and the original verdict was upheld.
【Typical significance】
The holder of the variety right in this case is a New Zealand company, and the judgment shows that the People’s Court insists on equal protection in accordance with the law. This case regards the act of selling harvested materials as a natural extension of the production and reproduction of propagation materials, and when the infringer mainly obtains illegal profits by selling harvested materials, the sales profit of the harvested materials is used as the basis for determining the amount of compensation, which provides an important reference for the calculation of compensation in subsequent similar cases and further strengthens the comprehensive protection of variety right holders. The method of stopping infringement supported by this case, which is to cut off the scion of infringing propagation material and graft other non-infringing variety scions, fully considers the characteristics of perennial asexually propagated crops, fully protects the interests of variety right holders, and reasonably takes into account the recovery of agricultural production and avoidance of resource waste, and makes useful explorations for refining the forms of stopping infringement of variety rights.

Case 3. Infringement of the new variety of rose plant “Tianshan Xiangyun”

[Dispute between Xinjiang Hua XX Technology Company and a Xinjiang seedling farm regarding infringement of new plant variety rights]
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2024）最高法知民终665号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. is the owner of the variety right of the new variety of Rosaceae, “Tianshan Xiangyun”. In 2022, Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. notarized the purchase of seedlings that infringed the variety right of “Tianshan Xiangyun” from a certain seedling farm in Xinjiang. On May 28, 2023, a certain seedling farm in Xinjiang signed a “Seedling Ordering Agreement” with a certain cultivation base in Changji, agreeing to sell 8,000 “Tianshan Xiangyun Seedlings.” Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. filed an infringement lawsuit, claiming that the Xinjiang seedling farm had continued to infringe from 2014 to 2023, and requested that Xinjiang farm to stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling 5 million RMB. Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. sells “Tianshan Xiangyun” at a price of 320-360 RMB per plant, while the Xinjiang seedling farm sells it at a price of 120-160 RMB per plant. Xinjiang Hua Technology Co., Ltd. claims that the average of the difference between its sales price of “Tianshan Xiangyun” and the sales price of the Xinjiang seedling farm in is its sales profit. The Xinjiang seedling farm argued that it was a public welfare institution. Since 2014, it has been cutting branches of rose varieties such as “Tianshan Xiangyun” from municipal parks for breeding. In 2021, the 36 rose varieties cultivated will be uniformly named “Tianshan Rose.” “Tianshan Xiangyun” is only one of them. Its behavior is scientific research and development, and the seedlings it obtained were cut from municipal parks or introduced from other places. According to the principle of exhaustion of rights, it does not constitute infringement. The 2021 work summary submitted by it shows that 10,500 “Tianshan Xiangyun” cuttings were taken in 2021, and 4,000 survived. The “Origin Quarantine Certificate” of the Xinjiang seedling farm in 2022 and 2023 recorded that the number of “Tianshan Rose” including “Tianshan Xiangyun” was 20,000 and 50,000 respectively. The first instance court determined that the production, breeding and sales behavior of the Xinjiang seedling farm exceeded the scope of scientific research and had a profit-making purpose. The infringement was established and ordered it to stop the infringement and pay 200,000 RMB in compensation. Xinjiang Hua Technology Company appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the application of the principle of exhaustion of variety rights is based on the premise that the authorized variety propagation materials are sold by the variety right holder or the entity or individual authorized by the variety right holder, and only applies to the subsequent production, propagation, and sales of the legally sold authorized variety propagation materials themselves, and does not apply to the re-propagation and sale of the sold propagation materials. The Xinjiang seedling farm failed to prove that its propagation behavior was to use the authorized variety to cultivate new varieties, and its large-scale propagation was inconsistent with the scale required for scientific research. At the same time, it engaged in sales for profit, which constituted infringement. The Xinjiang seedling farm admitted that it had cut and propagated “Tianshan Xiangyun” seedlings at the end of 2014 and is still producing and propagating it. Combined with the notarial certificates involved in the case, relevant agreements, work summaries and other evidence, it can be determined that it has continued to infringe since at least 2014 to 2023. Considering that the price of goods sold to the outside world is bound to be higher than the production cost and the Xinjiang seedling farm refused to provide relevant account books and other information, the average value of the difference between the price of “Tianshan Xiangyun” sold by Xinjiang Hua Technology Company and the sales price of Xinjiang seedling farm, that is, 200 RMB/plant, was used as the basis for determining the losses suffered by the right holder due to infringement. Based on the evidence in the case, the number of alleged infringing seedlings produced and bred by the Xinjiang seedling farm in 2021 was not less than 4,000, and in 2023 it was not less than 8,000. Based on this, selecting the average number of these two years, it can be determined that the number of alleged infringing seedlings produced and bred by the Xinjiang seedling farm from 2021 to 2023 was 6,000 plants/year. The amount of damages calculated based on these three years alone has exceeded the 3 million RMB requested by Xinjiang Hua Technology Company in appeal. Therefore, the second instance changed the judgment to fully support the amount of compensation requested by Xinjiang Hua Technology Company on appeal.
【Typical significance】
This case clearly states that the principle of exhaustion of rights does not apply to the act of re-breeding and selling the propagation materials that have been sold. The second-instance judgment supported the relevant claims of the variety right holder when the infringer refused to submit financial books and other evidence, calculated the infringement damages based on the difference between the variety right holder’s selling price and the infringer’s selling price, and significantly increased the amount of compensation, effectively protecting the rights and interests of breeding innovation entities, and has precedential significance for breaking through the difficulties of evidence and accurately determining the amount of compensation in similar infringement cases.

Case 4. “Jinjing 818” new rice plant variety infringement case

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company and Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company, Zhao XX and Zhao YY]
First instance: 江苏省南京市中级人民法院（2022）苏01民初2019号
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终2896号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company is the licensee of the exclusive implementation license for the new rice plant variety “Jinjing 818”. In May 2020, a certain agricultural material company in Xuzhou was ordered to stop infringement and bear punitive compensation liability for using white bags and irregular packaging to sell infringing seeds without the permission of the “Jinjing 818” variety right holder. The company failed to comply with the above judgment, and Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company applied for compulsory execution. During the execution process, the court added Zhao XX, the sole shareholder and legal representative of a certain agricultural material company in Xuzhou, as the liable person. Since January 2021, Zhao XX has successively released seed supply information, contact numbers of the heads of various sales areas of a certain agricultural material company in Xuzhou, and accountant Zhao YY in WeChat group chats, and organized offline ordering activities. Starting from November 29, 2021, a farmer communicated with the sales staff of the agricultural material company in Xuzhou about the purchase of the alleged infringing seeds, and paid the deposit and the remaining amount to Zhao YY’s account. Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Xuzhou XX Agricultural Materials Company, Zhao XX, and Zhao YY stop infringing and jointly compensate for losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 3 million RMB. During the first instance trial, it was determined that the alleged infringing seeds were very similar or identical to “Jinjing 818”.
[Judgment Result]
The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held at first instance that after being ordered to stop infringement in the previous case, the Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company once again organized seed transactions through WeChat groups and committed infringement. Zhao XX, the legal representative and sole shareholder of Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company, used WeChat groups to publish seed supply information and organized offline ordering activities, playing a key and core organizational role in seed transactions, and jointly infringed with Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company. Zhao YY, who participated in seed sampling, collected transaction funds with his personal account after Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company was found liable, and he, Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company, and Zhao XX  jointly infringed. The three defendants were ordered to stop the infringement, and Xuzhou Agricultural Materials Company and Zhao XX jointly compensated Jiangsu Jin XX Industrial Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.8 million RMB, and Zhao YY was jointly liable for 350,000 RMB of it. The three defendants  appealed. The Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment.
【Typical significance】
This case is a typical example of severely cracking down on hidden infringements and the persons directly responsible. In response to hidden infringements such as organizing seed transactions on online platforms, the actual controller of the company who played an organizing and decision-making role in the occurrence of the infringement and other persons who received the company’s infringement proceeds with their personal accounts and directly participated in the infringement were found to have committed joint infringements with the company, and were ordered to bear joint and several liability based on the circumstances of their infringement and the extent of their role, effectively raising the cost of infringement.

Case 5. Infringement of the new variety of the genus “Hongyunlai”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between a Shanghai plant company and a Guangzhou agricultural science company]
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2022）最高法知民终1362号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
A plant company in Shanghai and a non-party company in Shanghai are the variety rights holders of the new fruit vine variety “Hongyunlai.” In January 2020, the plant company in Shanghai obtained “Xinhongxing” seedlings sold by the Guangzhou agricultural science company and has them notarized and stored at the Plant New Variety Testing (Shanghai) Branch Center, and sent the above two samples to a technology company in Ningbo for testing. On April 13, 2020, the technology company in Ningbo issued a “Technical Appraisal Opinion”, and the appraisal result was that the AFLP fingerprints of the two varieties were 95.08% similar, and the two varieties were highly similar. The plant company in Shanghai filed a lawsuit, requesting that the Guangzhou agricultural science company be ordered to stop infringement and compensate for losses. The first-instance judgment did not adopt the technical appraisal opinion on the grounds that the varieties involved had no national standards or industry standards for molecular marker detection, and rejected all the claims of the plant company in Shanghai. The plant company in Shanghai appealed. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court approved the appraisal application of the plant company in Shanghai, and with the consent of both parties, designated a testing agency to conduct the appraisal. The testing agency used the MNP labeling method to conduct testing and issued a test report stating that the genetic similarity between the tested sample and the control sample was 99.91%, and the identification results were extremely similar or the same variety.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the people’s courts should review whether the molecular marker detection method for plant variety identity identification is scientific and reliable. If the molecular marker detection method for a specific plant variety has not yet established a national standard or industry standard, the identification results made by qualified identification institutions and appraisers with reference to other relevant standards, if the identification method can scientifically and accurately distinguish different varieties and has sufficient scientific basis and repeatability, can be used as evidence to determine whether the alleged infringing object is identical to the authorized variety. The “MNP Marking Method for Plant Variety Identification” has been established as a national standard and can be applied to the identification of original varieties, substantially derived varieties and variety authenticity identification of rice, corn, soybeans, etc. The identity identification of pineapple varieties of the genus Pyrifera can be carried out in accordance with the “MNP Marking Method for Plant Variety Identification.” After identification, the alleged infringing seedlings “Xinhongxing” and the authorized variety “Hongyunlai” are very similar or identical varieties. The Guangzhou agricultural science company did not submit rebuttal evidence, so it can be determined that the alleged infringing seedlings are identical to the authorized variety “Hongyunlai”. The court then changed the judgment to require the Guangzhou agricultural science company to stop infringing  and compensate for the losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.075 million RMB.
【Typical significance】
This case is a typical case of exploring the use of MNP labeling for identification of specific crops for which national or industry standards for molecular marker detection have not yet been established. The second-instance judgment conducted a strict review of the identification methods and institutions of specific crops, and based on the scientific nature and repeatability of the identification methods, determined that the identification opinions can be used as evidence to determine that the alleged infringing seedlings are identical to the authorized varieties, avoiding the lack of identification standards for specific crop variety rights affecting judicial protection and relief. This case provides a precedential example for the use and judicial review of the MNP labeling method in the identification of the identity of new plant varieties.

Case 6. Infringement of the new corn plant variety “Jingnuo 6”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between a breeding company in Beijing and a certain industrial company in Guangxi, a certain subsidiary in Shenzhen, and a certain seed store]
First instance: 广东省深圳市中级人民法院（2022）粤03民初4649号
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终1790号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
A certain scientific academy in Beijing is the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety “Jingnuo 6”, and a certain breeding company in Beijing is its exclusive licensee. “Jingkenuo 2000” is a hybrid corn variety produced with “Jingnuo 6” and “Bai Nuo 6” as parents. The breeding company in Beijing filed a lawsuit, requesting that a certain industrial company in Guangxi, a certain subsidiary in Shenzhen, and a certain seed store stop using “Jingnuo 6” to produce the alleged infringing seed “Shenkenuo 8” and compensate for the losses. The first instance court conducted an authenticity appraisal of the alleged infringing seeds “Shenkenuo 8” and “Jingkenuo 2000” in accordance with the law, and conducted a parent-child relationship appraisal of the alleged infringing seeds “Shenkenuo 8” and “Jingnuo 6”. The appraisal result is that the alleged infringing seeds “Shenkenuo 8” and “Jingkenuo 2000” are similar varieties, and are suspected to have a parent-child relationship with “Jingnuo 6”.
[Judgment Result]
In the first instance, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province determined that the alleged infringing seed “Shenkenuo No. 8” was produced by reusing the authorized variety “Jingnuo 6” as the parent, based on the results of the authenticity identification and parent-child relationship identification in the case, and ordered the industrial company in Guangxi, the subsidiary in Shenzhen, and the seed store to stop the infringement, and ordered the industrial company in Guangxi to compensate for losses of 300,000 RMB and reasonable expenses of 50,000 RMB, the subsidiary in Shenzhen to compensate for losses of 100,000 RMB , and the seed store to compensate for losses of 20,000 RMB. The industrial company in Guangxi and a subsidiary in Shenzhen appealled.
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that, when judging whether a specific hybrid is produced and propagated by repeatedly using the authorized variety as a parent, given that there is currently a lack of national standards or industry standards for the identification of the parent-offspring relationship of plant varieties, the parent-offspring relationship identification opinion made by the identification agency in reference to the variety authenticity identification standard can be used as the basis for determining the facts. The identification report in this case can serve as preliminary evidence to determine that the alleged infringing seed “Shenkenuo No. 8” repeatedly used the authorized variety “Jingnuo 6” breeding materials in the production process. At the same time, combined with the identification opinion that the hybrid “Jingkenuo 2000” produced with “Jingnuo 6” as the mother parent and the alleged infringing hybrid “Shenkenuo No. 8” are similar varieties, it can be determined that the fact that “Shenkenuo No. 8” was produced using the “Jingnuo 6” breeding materials as the parent is highly likely. The Guangxi industrial company and a subsidiary in Shenzhen failed to provide evidence to prove that the alleged infringing seeds have a legitimate parental source, so their claim of non-infringement is not supported. The court therefore ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
【Typical significance】
With the deepening of intellectual property protection in the seed industry, the protection of crop parents has become one of the key concerns of variety right holders. At present, there is no universal standard for the identification of the parent-offspring relationship of plant varieties. How to prove that the hybrid variety in question is produced using the authorized variety is a difficult problem in judicial practice. This case reasonably considers the laws of crop breeding, comprehensively analyzes the results of the parent-offspring relationship identification between the parent variety and the hybrid variety, and the authenticity identification results of the hybrid variety, and reasonably allocates the burden of proof, thereby achieving effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parent variety right holders, and providing a reference for handling similar cases in judicial practice.

Case 7. Infringement of the new corn plant variety “Xianyu 508”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between a certain industrial company in Shandong and a certain agricultural company in Shanxi and a certain distribution department in Qi County]
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2024）最高法知民终819号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
A certain industrial company in Shandong, authorized by the variety right holder, has the right to file a civil lawsuit in its own name for infringement of the variety right of “Xianyu 508”. After testing, the allegedly infringing seeds “Chenqiang 808”, “Jinongyu 885” and “Jinke 757” are very similar or identical to the authorized variety of “Xianyu 508”. The Shandong industrial company  filed an infringement lawsuit, requesting that a certain agricultural company in Shanxi and a certain distribution department in Qi County stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling 550,000 RMB. The Shandong industrial company requested to determine the amount of compensation based on the profit of the infringement of the Shanxi company, and submitted the sales data of corn seeds of “Chenqiang 808”, “Jinongyu 885” and “Jinke 757” filed on the seed industry big data platform from 2018 to 2021; and claimed to determine the production and sales quantity of infringing seeds based on the production numbers of the Shanxi company in the above-mentioned filing data. The court of first instance ordered the Shanxi agricultural company and the Qi county distribution department to stop the infringement, and ordered the Shanxi agricultural company to compensate for losses of 30,000 RMB and reasonable expenses of 16,000 RMB, and the Qi county distribution department to pay reasonable expenses of 4,000 RMB. Both the Shandong agricultural company and the Shanxi agricultural company appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the alleged infringer registered production and operation on the seed industry big data platform as a producer, and the name of the alleged infringing seed was the same as the name of the registered variety, and the production time of the alleged infringing seed was close to the registration time of the seed industry big data platform. In principle, it can be presumed that the registered sales quantity is the production and sales quantity of the infringing seeds. Combined with the facts of this case, the names of the alleged infringing seeds “Chenqiang 808”, “Jinongyu 885” and “Jinke 757” obtained through notarization are the same as the names of the registered varieties, and the production time of the alleged infringing seeds is close to the registration time of the seed industry big data platform in 2021. It can be presumed that the seeds with the same name registered by the Shanxi agricultural company in 2021 are all “Xianyu 508” corn seeds, and the registered sales quantity can be determined as the production and sales quantity of the alleged infringing seeds, and the infringement damages can be calculated accordingly. Therefore, the Shanxi agricultural company was sentenced to compensate for losses of 370,000 RMB and reasonable expenses of 30,000 RMB.
【Typical significance】
The information system of the seed administration department stores data and information related to seed production, sales and other links. Through the reasonable use of relevant data and information, effective tracking of the infringing subject and the scale of infringement can be formed. This case clarifies the use of the registered data of the seed industry big data platform in the calculation of damages for variety rights infringement. Through comprehensive consideration of the registered data of the seed industry big data platform and the infringement involved in the case, the sales volume of infringing seeds is reasonably estimated, and the amount of infringement compensation is calculated accordingly, which effectively solves the problem of difficulty in providing evidence for variety rights holders and effectively increases the intensity of infringement compensation.

Case 8. Infringement case of new wheat plant variety “Bainong 207”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Hua XX Industrial Company, Feng XX Industrial Company and Tang XX Sales Department]
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终113号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Hua XX Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new plant variety “Bainong 207”. The alleged infringing seeds were purchased from Tang’s store. The packaging bag and the QR code scan screenshot show that the variety name is “Sunshine 818”, and the producer is “Feng XX Industrial Company”. The query of the QR code traceability website shows that the queried product is genuine, and the production unit also points to Feng  Industrial Company. Hua Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Feng Industrial Company and Tang’s store stop infringing and compensate for losses of 300,000 RMB. In the first instance, Hua Industrial Company submitted a “Test Report” made by a unilateral commission, intending to prove that the alleged infringing seeds are the same variety as the authorized variety “Bainong 207”. The first instance court determined that the control sample “Bainong 207” had no sample number, the source was questionable, and the test conclusion was insufficient. The production date and test date shown on the scanned QR code of the packaging bag were two years earlier than the sales date, which was inconsistent with common sense and could not prove that the alleged infringing seeds were produced by Feng Industrial Company. Therefore, the first instance judgment dismissed all the claims of Hua Industrial Company. Hua Industrial Company appealed. In the second instance, the court initiated the appraisal according to law, as the alleged infringing seeds were sealed in good condition and met the conditions for appraisal. The appraisal agency conducted an identity test on the alleged infringing seeds and the “Bainong 207” standard sample in the national standard sample library, and the test results showed that the two were the same variety.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the information marked on the seed packaging and label, the license or the information pointed to by the number of the “Origin Quarantine Certificate” is an important basis for identifying the production and sales entity of the alleged infringing seeds. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the seed producer and operator information clearly marked on the packaging bag can be used to determine the identity of the production and sales entity. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Feng Industrial Company can be identified as the producer and seller of the alleged infringing seeds. The probative force of the inspection report issued by the appraisal agency should be reviewed from the aspects of the source of the sample, the identification method, the identification procedure and the identification qualification. The appraisal agency entrusted by the court conducted a germination test on the sample to be tested. After the successful germination determined that the seed vitality was normal, it used the molecular marker identification method for detection and issued an inspection report in accordance with the national standard, which can prove that the alleged infringing seeds are identical to the “Bai Nong 207” wheat variety. Tang’s sales department knew that it was infringing seeds but still sold them, and should bear joint and several liability. Based on this, the second instance court changed the judgment to require Feng Industrial Company and Tang Store to stop the infringement, and Feng Industrial Company to compensate for the losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 300,000 RMB, and Tang Store to bear joint and several liability within 50,000 RMB of this amount.
【Typical significance】
Accurately identifying the infringing subject is a key link in maintaining the order of the seed market and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the variety rights holders. This case clarified the basis for identifying the producers and sellers in the variety rights infringement disputes, and highlighted the importance of making good use of the management information involved in seed supervision to achieve coordinated protection. At the same time, the second-instance judgment provided guidance on the evidence and duty of care of the appraisal applicant. According to the second-instance appraisal opinion, the infringement facts were confirmed, and the legitimate rights and interests of the variety rights holders were fully protected.

Case 9. Infringement of the new soybean plant variety “Qihuang 34”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng XX]
First instance: 山东省青岛市中级人民法院（2024）鲁02知民初34号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new soybean plant variety “Qihuang 34”. Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and its operator Geng promised to sell  “Qihuang 34” soybean seeds through Douyin [TikTok] video accounts and WeChat video accounts. According to statistics, the videos released on different dates advertised that the amount of seeds produced and sold by them reached 310 tons. Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng stop the infringement and jointly compensate for the loss of 300,000 RMBand reasonable expenses of 12,596 RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The Intermediate People’s Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province held at first instance that the Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng XX produced and sold seeds that infringed the “Qihuang 34” soybean plant new variety rights without permission, which constituted infringement and they should bear civil liabilities such as stopping the infringement and compensating for losses. The Qingdao Li XX Professional Cooperative and Geng sold 310 tons of infringing soybean seeds through the Internet. According to the notarized purchase price of 3.5 RMB per catty by Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company, the infringing sales amounted to 2.17 million RMB. Based on this, the first instance judgment fully supported the economic losses of 300,000 RMB claimed by Shandong Sheng XX Industrial Company, and supported the reasonable expenses of 10,000 RMB for rights protection. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.
【Typical significance】
This case embodies the effective use of online evidence in seed industry infringement cases. At the same time, it fully supports the rights holder’s claim for compensation based on the evidence in the case, reflecting the judicial orientation of the People’s Court to effectively strengthen the protection of seed industry intellectual property rights and increase the intensity of compensation for damages.

Case 10. Infringement of the new soybean plant variety “You6019”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Henan Xu XX Industrial Company and Henan Hua XX Industrial Company, Xin XX Agricultural Materials Business Department and Ming XX Agricultural Materials Business Department]
First instance: 河南省郑州市中级人民法院（2023）豫01知民初1907号
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2024）最高法知民终713号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Henan Xu Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new soybean plant variety “You 6019”. This variety passed the national variety approval in 2018 and is suitable for summer planting in Hubei, Chongqing, southern Anhui, northern Jiangxi, and southern Shaanxi. The “Zhongdou 40” soybean seeds produced by Henan Hua Industrial Company were commissioned by Xin Agricultural Materials Business Department and sold by Ming Agricultural Materials Business Department in Anxiang County, Changde City, Hunan Province, and were seized by local agricultural law enforcement departments. After testing, “Zhongdou 40” and “You 6019” are suspected to be the same variety. Henan Xu Industrial Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Henan Hua Industrial Company, Xin Agricultural Materials Business Department, and Ming Agricultural Materials Business Department stop infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses of 300,000 RMB. Henan Hua Industrial Company, Xin Agricultural Materials Business Department, and Ming Agricultural Materials Business Department argued that their sales activities occurred outside the suitable planting area for the “You 6019” variety, and Henan Xu Industrial Company had no right to claim rights and should not receive economic compensation.
[Judgment Result]
The Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province ruled at first instance that Henan Hua XX Industrial Company, Xin XX Agricultural Materials Business Department, and Ming XX Agricultural Materials Business Department should stop infringing the law and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 150,000, RMB 10,000, and RMB 5,000 respectively. Henan Hua XX Industrial Company appealed.
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that if the variety right is legal and within the effective protection period, it should be protected by law. The scope of the prohibition power of the variety right is not limited by the authorized variety suitable planting area or the approved area, and the establishment of the variety right infringement is not conditional on whether the alleged infringement is carried out in the authorized variety suitable planting area or the approved area. The production and sale of authorized variety propagation materials in non-approved areas without the permission of the variety right holder still constitutes infringement according to law. At the same time, damages, as a basic legal remedy for the right holder, should not be adversely affected by the infringement occurring in non-approved areas. On the contrary, infringement in non-approved areas not only damages the rights and interests of the variety right holder, but also may damage the interests of growers, which can be used as a factor to aggravate the infringement. Hua XX Industrial Company produced and sold the alleged infringing seeds in non-approved suitable planting areas, which constituted infringement and should bear compensation liability. At the same time, based on the same authorized variety, the same infringement and the infringing subject, the reasonable expenses incurred by the variety right holder in the administrative law enforcement procedure to maintain its variety rights can be determined as reasonable expenses in the case of infringement of new plant variety rights disputes, and they shall be supported when determining compensation liability. The court then ruled to dismiss the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
【Typical significance】
This case clarified the nature of the infringement of the production and sale of authorized varieties in non-approved areas, emphasized that the protection of variety rights is not limited by the planting area, and that the infringement may also affect the legitimate rights and interests of growers, which can be used as a factor in the aggravation of the infringement. At the same time, this case also clarified that the reasonable expenses spent by the variety right holder in the administrative law enforcement procedure to maintain its variety rights under certain circumstances can be supported as reasonable expenses in the case of infringement of new plant variety rights. The judgment in this case further strengthened the comprehensive protection of the legitimate rights and interests of variety right holders.

Case 11. Infringement of new varieties of rose plants such as “LEXTEEWS”

[Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between a Dutch group company, an Ai agricultural company and a Lanzhou agricultural technology company]
First instance: 甘肃省兰州市中级人民法院（2023）甘01知民初42、43、44号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
A Dutch group company is the owner of the variety rights of three new rose plant varieties, including “LEXTEEWS”. Ai Agricultural Company is an affiliated company of a Dutch group company, authorized to produce, promote and sell a series of rose varieties including “LEXTEEWS” in China, and has the right to sue for related infringements. An agricultural company in Lanzhou bred, promised to sell and sold “LEXTEEWS” and other rose varieties on a large scale in the flower industry base. The Dutch group company and Ai Agricultural Company filed three infringement lawsuits, requesting that the agricultural company in Lanzhou stop the infringement and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than 10 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
After the first instance of the case was filed at the Intermediate People’s Court of Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, Ai Agricultural Company immediately applied for property preservation of more than 8 million RMB in the account funds of the Lanzhou Agricultural Company. Rose planting by the Lanzhou Agricultural Company has reached a certain scale. The first instance court organized mediation between the two parties many times, promoting win-win cooperation between the two parties, and finally signed an authorization statement and cooperation framework agreement, transforming the infringement into authorized cooperation.
【Typical significance】
The People’s Court adheres to the purpose of justice for the people and the principle of equal protection, actively explores diversified dispute resolution, and ultimately mediates the case. It not only equally protects the rights of foreign variety right holders in accordance with the law, but also lays a solid foundation for future cooperation between the two parties, prompting both parties to integrate resources, give play to their respective advantages, drive industrial development, and achieve good results of win-win, multi-win and win-win results.

Case 12. Case involving a “shousi pineapple” planting contract

[Planting contract dispute between Hainan Feng Fruit Company and Ye Ding]
Second instance: 海南自由贸易港知识产权法院（2023）琼73民终328号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
On October 11, 2020, Hainan Feng Fruit Company and Ye Ding signed the “Pineapple Planting Agreement”, which stipulated that the two parties would cooperate in planting “shousi pineapples”. Ye Ding would provide pineapple seedlings and planting fertilizers for a fee, provide planting technology free of charge, and guarantee that the pineapple fruit yield would not be less than 3,000 kilograms per mu, and the cultivated pineapple seedling yield would not be less than 12,000 plants per mu; after the pineapple fruits matured, Ye Ding would repurchase all the pineapple fruits at a price not less than 3 RMB per kilogram. During the cooperation process, Hainan Feng Fruit Company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the pineapple production and sales price did not conform to the contract agreement, requesting that Ye Ding pay a penalty of 505,008 RMB, compensate for losses of 288,985 RMB, and repurchase pineapple seedlings at market prices. Ye Ding counterclaimed and requested Hainan Feng Fruit Company to pay 115,396 RMB for seedlings and compensate for losses due to overdue payments. The court of first instance ruled that Ye Ding should compensate Hainan Feng Mou Fruit Company for the losses, and Hainan Feng Fruit Company should pay the remaining amount of seedlings to Ye Ding. Hainan Feng Fruit Company appealed to the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court.
[Judgment Result]
After the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court accepted the case, it handled the case prudently and sought diversified solutions, considering that seeds and seedlings are important raw materials for agricultural production and their quality and safety are related to farmers’ income and agricultural development. Considering that the subject matter of the case, “shousi pineapple” seedlings, is a non-major crop variety with high economic value, in order to substantially resolve the disputes and contradictions between the two parties, the court communicated with the two parties many times before and after the court, and facilitated the mediation of the two parties from multiple angles of “emotion”, “reason” and “law”. The two parties signed the mediation agreement and immediately implemented the contents of the mediation agreement on the day they received it, and the case was successfully resolved.
【Typical significance】
This case is a typical example of settling disputes in the seed industry. Based on the contract agreement and legal provisions, the trial court balanced the interests of seed users and seed suppliers, advocated that the parties eliminate differences, show mutual understanding and compromise, and achieve win-win results, thus facilitating the settlement of the case and effectively implementing the concept of justice for the people in specific cases, ensuring the safety of seed use and maintaining the healthy development of the seed industry.

Case 13. Unfair competition case involving the name of a well-known breeder

[Unfair competition dispute between a certain agricultural high-tech company and Wan Group Company and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company]
First instance: 江西省上饶市中级人民法院（2024）赣11民初10号
Second instance: 江西省高级人民法院（2024）赣民终288号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Before his death, Academician Yuan Longping signed the “Yuan Longping Brand Rights License Agreement” with a certain agricultural high-tech company, authorizing the company to exclusively use his name in its business activities. Wan Group Company and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company have overlapping business scopes with a certain agricultural high-tech company. They use the words “Guo Mi Wannian Gong Yuan Longping” in the outer packaging of rice and other products and in online publicity for promotion and sales. The agricultural high-tech company filed a lawsuit, requesting that the two defendants immediately stop unfair competition and compensate the agricultural high-tech company for economic losses of 1 million RMB and reasonable expenses of 100,000 RMB for rights protection.
[Judgment Result]
The Shangrao Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangxi Province ruled at first instance that Wan Group and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company should immediately stop the unfair competition of producing and selling packaging products with “Yuan Longping’s” name and signature, and immediately delete the promotional content that improperly uses “Yuan Longping’s” name and signature; Wan Group and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company should compensate for the losses and reasonable expenses of rights protection totaling 50,000 RMB. Wan Group and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company appealed.
The Jiangxi Provincial High People’s Court held in the second instance that the use of the words “Yuan Longping” in the form of inscriptions and signatures on the allegedly infringing goods was commercial use. Academician Yuan Longping’s name has a high degree of popularity and influence, and is a name with a certain influence. The agricultural high-tech company enjoys the relevant commercial use rights of the name “Yuan Longping”. Wan Group Company and Jiangxi Wan Industrial Company used the name “Yuan Longping” for product promotion and sales without obtaining legal authorization, which easily misled people into believing that their products had a specific connection with Academician Yuan Longping or the agricultural high-tech company, constituting commercial confusion. This behavior violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the agricultural high-tech company, and constituted unfair competition. Based on this, the second instance court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
【Typical significance】
Academician Yuan Longping is a hybrid rice breeding expert in my country and the father of hybrid rice in the world. His name has extremely high social influence and commercial value. The judgment in this case clarifies the legal standard for the commercial use of the names of well-known breeders to constitute unfair competition, and provides guidance for adjudication of similar disputes. The judgment in this case effectively implements the principles of honesty and trustworthiness and business ethics, effectively safeguards the commercial rights and interests of the names of well-known breeders, regulates the market competition order, and helps to create a healthy and fair market environment.

Case 14. Invalidation of the new corn plant variety “FL218”

[Administrative dispute over invalidity of new plant variety rights between Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Co., Ltd. and the Plant Variety Review Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Hubei Kang XX Industrial Co., Ltd.]
First instance: 北京知识产权法院（2022）京73行初4665号
Second instance: 最高人民法院（2024）最高法知行终627号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
Hubei Kang XX Industrial Company is the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety “FL218”. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company filed a request for invalidation with the Plant Variety Review Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, claiming that the variety had been mass-produced and sold before the application date, and other varieties approved for breeding with it as a parent had also been mass-produced and sold, so the variety in question did not have novelty. The Plant Variety Review Committee made an invalidation review decision, believing that the evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that the variety in question lacked novelty and specificity, and maintained the validity of the variety right in question. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
[Judgment Result]
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held at first instance that “FL218” possessed novelty and specificity, and rejected the lawsuit filed by Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Co., Ltd. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Co., Ltd. appealed.
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company only requested the declaration of invalidity of the variety right on the grounds that “FL218” did not have novelty, and did not explicitly claim specificity. However, considering that Hubei Kang XX Industrial Company also agreed to review whether “FL218” had specificity during the invalidation review procedure and administrative litigation, the invalidation review decision protected the rights and interests of the variety right holder to defend, listened to the opinions of the variety right holder, and did not constitute a procedural violation. The specificity of a new plant variety refers to the obvious difference in characteristics between the propagation materials of the variety and the known varieties before the application date. The invalidation applicant needs to clarify the known varieties of the authorized variety and prove that the authorized variety is not obviously different from the known variety through evidence such as DNA identification results or field test results. The burden of proof shall be borne by the invalidation applicant. Guizhou Hui XX Industrial Company did not submit evidence to prove that the three parent varieties involved in the case were known varieties of “FL218”, nor did it have preliminary evidence to prove that “FL218” was the same variety as the three parent varieties involved in the case, and did not fulfill the burden of proof. Because it failed to prove that “FL218” did not have novelty and specificity, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
【Typical significance】
This case focuses on the legality of the procedure, clarifies the scope of the procedure for invalidation of variety rights initiated upon application, the specific identification standards and the distribution of the burden of proof in the procedure for confirmation of variety rights, and provides guidance for the review and proof in the procedure for invalidation of variety rights. This case helps to standardize the procedure for reviewing the invalidation of variety rights and promote the high-quality development of the seed industry.

Case 15. Crime of infringing trade secrets involving the new rice plant variety “Tsuen U 822”

First instance: 安徽省合肥高新技术产业开发区人民法院（2023）皖0191刑初611号

[Basic Facts of the Case]
A certain high-tech company in Anhui is the owner of the new plant variety rights of “Quanyou 9311A”, “YR0822” and “Quanyou 822”. Among them, the “Quanyou 822” rice seed was developed by the company’s scientific research team. The cultivation technology and genetic information of its mother “Quan 9311A” are the company’s core secrets and have not been disclosed to the public. Strict confidentiality measures have been taken. After the trial planting of “Quanyou 822” achieved mass production, the Anhui high-tech company transferred the relevant technology to its wholly-owned subsidiary, an Anhui industrial company, which obtained the exclusive domestic production and operation rights, and the transfer contract stipulated strict confidentiality obligations for all personnel involved in the production and management of the seeds. In 2019 and 2020, a certain industrial company in Anhui signed a “Hybrid Rice Seed Production Contract” with Deng XX, the legal representative of a certain seed professional cooperative, entrusting the cooperative to produce “Tsuenyou 822” rice seeds. It clearly stipulated that the contractor should ensure that the parents will not be lost, not be bred privately, and not be used for other purposes privately, and that the seeds produced by the contract will not be lost. The contractor will bear legal responsibility for the loss of parents or private breeding. In addition, the number of mother rice parents will be issued each year based on the number of acres planted by farmers, and technicians will be stationed at the planting base to provide long-term guidance on planting, supervise production, and prevent rice seed loss. Since 2019, Deng XX, Wang XX and Huang X of a certain seed company have conspired to arrange for Huang, an employee of their cooperative, to apply for more parent “Quan 9311A” from a certain seed company in Anhui by applying more per mu, and privately bred “Quanyou 822” rice seeds outside the supervision of a certain seed company in Anhui, and handed them over to a certain seed company to sell 113,840 kilograms under a fake brand, causing a loss of 1,090,360 RMB to the certain high-tech company in Anhui. On October 11, 2023, the People’s Procuratorate of Hefei High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Anhui Province, filed a public prosecution, accusing Deng, Wang , Huang 1 and Huang 2 of obtaining the right holder’s business secrets through improper means of false reporting and fraud, violating the confidentiality obligation to use the business secrets they obtained, causing major losses to the business secret right holder, and the circumstances are serious, and they should be held criminally responsible for the crime of infringing on business secrets.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Court of Hefei High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Anhui Province, held at first instance that Deng and Huang violated the agreement with the right holder on keeping trade secrets, privately bred rice seeds, and Wang and Huang were responsible for selling them, making illegal profits, causing major losses to the right holder of the trade secrets, and the circumstances were serious, constituting the crime of infringing trade secrets. The defendants Deng Jin, Huang , Wang Yong, and Huang were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from ten months to one year and two months , and fined between 20,000 RMB and 200,000 RMB.
【Typical significance】
The judgment in this case uses criminal means to crack down on infringements, demonstrating the judicial system’s severe punishment of seed-related crimes. By exerting the legal deterrent power of criminal sanctions, we can effectively punish and prevent seed-related crimes, improve the protection of breeding innovation, purify the seed market, and create a good innovation environment for seed companies.