UK, France, and Switzerland Form International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Task Force to Combat Anti-Corruption
On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a memo requiring DOJ’s Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (“FCPA”) Unit to “prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs),” and to “shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection.” On February 10, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing a pause on initiation of new FCPA enforcement, a review of all existing FCPA investigations or enforcement, and updated guidelines or policies on new FCPA matters going forward.
On February 21, when we discussed the implications of these policy changes, we predicted that foreign regulators may step up enforcement to fill the perceived vacuum in domestic anti-corruption enforcement. On March 20, 2025, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), France’s Parquet National Financier (PNF) and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) formed the “International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Task Force” (the “Task Force”) to pool resources on strategic priorities, cooperation, and “operational collaboration.” The Task Force also stated that it would “invite other like-minded agencies” to join. Equipped with a Leaders’ Group, facilitating “the regular exchange of insight and strategy,” and a Working Group, for “devising proposals for co-operation on cases,” SFO Director Nick Ephgrave reported that the Task Force should help ensure “there is no daylight between our agencies,” preventing criminals from taking advantage of any potential gaps between partner enforcement authorities. While not in direct response to the administration’s recent shift in FCPA enforcement priorities as planning for the Task Force was already underway, the message is clear that the SFO, PNF, and OAG are seeking collaboration and partnership to most effectively and efficiently combat cross-border corruption, leaving the door open for other agencies to join.
The Task Force demonstrates a renewed commitment to tackling international bribery and corruption. Many of these foreign agencies, such as the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence française anticorruption or AFA), publish Guidelines in English that detail compliance policies, enforcement priorities, and objectives. Other countries also have enforceable anti-bribery and anti-corruption regulations. As we reported, compliance still matters and the Task Force is the latest demonstration of that fact. Companies operating in relevant jurisdictions should be mindful of these latest enforcement activities, their impact on cross-border investigations, and continue to evaluate and enhance their corporate compliance programs.
EU CSDDD Under US Pressure: Some Insights on the PROTECT USA Act
The European Commission’s (EC) recent announcement of the Omnibus Simplification Proposals signals that it has heard the challenges and objections raised by companies affected by the new requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). But in the US, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has introduced legislation that could impose substantial challenges to CSDDD compliance for US companies.
As a reminder, the EC proposed amendments for the implementation and transposition deadlines of the CSRD and CSDDD, as well as amending the scope and requirements of the CSRD and CSDDD. But the Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets Act of 2025 (PROTECT USA Act)[1] proposed by Senator Hagerty targets “foreign sustainability due diligence regulation” such as the CSDDD, and would prohibit US companies from being forced to comply with the CSDDD. If enacted as currently drafted, US companies will be faced with a significant conflict in complying with the PROTECT USA Act and the CSDDD.
Further, the PROTECT USA Act intends to protect US companies from any enforcement action by the EU or its member states for non-compliance with the CSDDD. Section 5(a) of the PROTECT USA Act states: “No person may take any adverse action towards an entity integral to the national interests of the United States for action or inaction related to a foreign sustainability due diligence regulation.”[2] And § 5(b) prevents U.S. federal or state courts from enforcing any judgment by a foreign court relating to any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation “unless otherwise provided by an Act of Congress.”[3]
The PROTECT USA Act could apply to a significant number of US companies, defining “an entity integral to the national interest of the United States” as “any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity that does business with any part of the Federal Government, including Federal contract awards or leases.”[4] It also includes entities:
[O]rganized under the laws of any State or territory within the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or under any Act of Congress or a foreign subsidiary of any such entity that—
(i) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the extraction or production of raw materials from the earth, including—
(I) cultivating biomass (whether or not for human consumption);
(II) exploring or producing fossil fuels;
(III) mining; and
(IV) processing any material de-rived from an activity described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) for human use or benefit;
(ii) has a primary North American Industry Classification System code or foreign equivalent associated with the manufacturing sector; or
(iii) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products;
(iv) is engaged in—
(I) the production of arms or other products integral to the national defense of the United States; or
(II) the production, mining, or processing of any critical mineral.[4]
And the PROTECT USA Act has a catch-all that will apply to any entity “the President otherwise identifies as integral to the national interests of the United States.”[5]
The PROTECT USA Act builds on opposition to the CSDDD raised during the Biden Administration and, given the Republican majorities in both the US House and Senate, advances the argument that the CSDDD challenges US sovereignty. In a February 26, 2025 bicameral letter to Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury and Kevin Hassett, the Director of the White House National Economic Council, legislators described the CSDDD as “a serious and unwarranted regulatory overreach, imposing significant economic and legal burdens on U.S. companies.”[6] Thus, the PROTECT USA Act may serve as an incentive to further limit the scope of the CSDDD.
We recently reviewed how companies should address CSRD requirements while the EC works through the Omnibus Simplification Proposals.[7] The PROTECT USA Act adds an additional layer of complexity for US companies in navigating the uncertainty of the EC’s legislative process along with the significant limits the PROTECT USA Act might present. SPB’s policy experts in the US and EU can support companies in making prudent business decisions in a rapidly changing legislative environment.
[1] https://www.hagerty.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HLA25119.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/csddd_letter_to_treasury-nec_draft_22525_zg.pdf.pdf
[7] https://natlawreview.com/article/what-should-companies-do-csrd-while-they-wait-eu-make-its-mind
New Decree for Patent Linkage by the Mexican Government.
On March 6, 2025, a Decree providing guidelines about the technical collaboration between the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the Federal Commission for Protection against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) was published in the Federal Official Gazette. This Decree follows the draft published on February 12, 2025, noted in our newsletter dated February 19, 2025. https://natlawreview.com/article/draft-decree-patent-linkage-mexican-government.
In brief, the key points of the Decree under report are the following:
Establishing the rules for communications between IMPI and COFEPRIS.
Guidelines for new “forms,” which will be published on the official web site of both authorities. Up to the date of circulation of this newsletter, these “forms” have not been published yet.
The information that should be included in the Allopathic Medicines Gazette and the corresponding technical communications between COFEPRIS and IMPI.
COFEPRIS will publish a list of Marketing Authorizations (MA) Applications for generics and biosimilars. This list (with no rules on temporality and forms) will be considered as a warning to the public for purposes of detecting potential harm to patent rights.
In case of potential harm to patent rights, an opposition “form” can be filed by the patent owner or its licensee and/or sublicensee before COFEPRIS within the statutory term of 10 working days after the publication date of such list.
The communication rendered by COFEPRIS to IMPI, concerning the technical communication should attach the “opposition form”, along with the information provided by the patent owner or its licensee and/or sublicensee.
The most relevant provisions included within the decree are the publication of the list of MA applications and the “opportunity” to file an opposition by the patent owner if he considers that a patent right is affected by the MA applications.
The Decree is legally founded on certain provisions of the IP Law, Health Regulations, and the USMCA. It seems that the decree intends to comply with the provisions of the USMCA, where it is provided that if a person/company (patent owner) is directly affected by a proceeding, in this case, the MA applications, they must be given with a reasonable opportunity to present facts and arguments, prior to issuing the corresponding decision on the MA application.
In OLIVARES, we consider that the USMCA establishes the burden to the State Party to provide the corresponding notice to the patent holder who would be directly affected by the marketing authorization application proceeding, on the contrary, this Decree imposes on the patent holders the burden of identifying themselves as affected parties without being personally notified by COFEPRIS or IMPI.
In addition, it seems that the opposition opportunity will take place before COFEPRIS and not IMPI, even though IMPI is the patent office, i.e., the authority that handles the information related to the owner or its licensee and/or sublicensee, namely, those who could be directly impacted by the patent linkage mechanism. Nevertheless, it is expected that the details of this matter should be described later, through other official texts.
The guidelines provided are a step forward in the Mexican Linkage System, as it clarifies the information to be exchanged by these authorities. Nonetheless, for the reasons commented, we consider that the Decree does not observe the obligations of proper notice established in the USMCA for the Mexican Patent Linkage. This conclusion could be summarized in the sense that the legal burden, obligations, and formalities of a notice process are different from an opposition system.
The Decree will come into force within the next 60 working days of its publication; namely, it will enter into force on June 3, 2025.
At OLIVARES, we will continue to follow up on the upcoming changes and application of this Decree, and we will keep our clients closely informed on this matter, monitoring how the decree will be implemented within practice.
Corporate Transparency Act 2.0 – Narrowing Reporting Requirements
On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued an interim final rule that significantly changes the reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). This alert summarizes the key changes to the reporting requirements and what they mean for your business.
Key Takeaways
Domestic companies1 are now exempt from all reporting requirements.
Foreign companies and foreign pooled investment vehicles no longer need to report U.S. person beneficial owners2 (but will need to report any non-U.S. person beneficial owners).
Compliance is still effectively voluntary as FinCEN has announced it will not be enforcing penalties and this rule is not yet effective.
Exemption for Domestic Companies
All domestic reporting companies are now completely exempt from the requirement to:
File initial beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports.
Update previously filed BOI reports.
Correct previously filed BOI reports.
FinCEN states that this reduction of requirements will eliminate the substantial compliance burdens for millions of U.S. businesses whose information would not be “highly useful” in the efforts to “detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes.”3
Changes for Foreign Companies
Foreign companies still must report beneficial ownership information, but with two important exemptions:
Foreign companies are exempt from reporting beneficial ownership information for any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners.
U.S. persons are exempt from providing their beneficial ownership information to foreign companies.
Foreign companies with only U.S. beneficial owners will not need to report any beneficial owners.
Changes for Foreign Pooled Investment Vehicles
Foreign pooled investment vehicles now only need to report:
Non-U.S. individuals who exercise substantial control over the entity (not an individual who has the greatest authority over the strategic management of the entity).
If multiple non-U.S. individuals exercise control, only the non-U.S. person with the greatest authority must be reported.
Foreign pooled investment vehicles with only U.S. beneficial owners will not need to report any beneficial owners.
Extended Deadline
Foreign reporting companies and pooled investment vehicles will have until the later of 30 days after this rule is published in the federal register, or 30 days after their registration to do business in the United States.
Next Steps
FinCEN is accepting comments on this interim final rule. The agency will assess these exemptions based on public comments and plans on issuing a final rule later this year.
1 See our prior advisories on the general application of the CTA and its specific application for those with entities for estate planning purposes for information on what is a domestic reporting company, a foreign reporting company, and beneficial owner information.
2 As a reminder, generally a beneficial owner is any individual who (directly or indirectly) (a) exercises substantial control over the company or (b) owns or controls at least 25% of the company’s ownership interests.
3 Please see full rule and explanation from FinCEN here.
Ex officio interventions by the Anti-Corruption and Good Government Ministry in public tenders in México
As part of the verification powers of the Anti-Corruption and Good Government Ministry in the bidding and contracting processes of the Public Sector, the Law on Acquisitions, Leases, and Services of the Public Sector allows it to carry out ex officio interventions to review the legality of public tender procedures.
As part of this function and in response to complaints filed by some pharmaceutical companies regarding the possible commission of acts of corruption, mainly related to the price offered for medicines, the aforementioned Ministry is carrying out an ex officio intervention to the convening authority called Laboratorios de Biológicos y Reactivos de México (BIRMEX) of the procedure of the open international public tender for the consolidated acquisition of medicines, therapeutic goods, healing material and diagnostic aids for fiscal years 2025 and 2026 in order to detect possible irregularities, and as part of said procedure, the entities who were awarded are being required to appear as third interested parties to make statements and to be able to provide information they consider relevant regarding the aforementioned tender process.
These ex officio interventions are not common, and the authorities are carrying them out with greater emphasis to supervise and document the bidding process, and if necessary, they could cancel purchases related to the codes that have not complied with the rules of the process.
Canada Releases Final State of PFAS Report and Proposed Risk Management Approach
On March 5, 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced the availability of its final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (State of PFAS Report) and proposed risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers. The State of PFAS Report concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment. To address these risks, on March 8, 2025, Canada published a proposed order that would add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). ECCC states in its March 5, 2025, press release that it will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to protect better firefighters and the environment. Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. ECCC notes that this will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles. ECCC states that it will publish a final decision on the proposed addition of 131 individual PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with reporting to take place by June 2026 for PFAS releases that occurred during the 2025 calendar year. ECCC states that these data will improve its understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help it evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances. Comments on the proposed risk management approach and the proposed order to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to CEPA Schedule 1 Part 2 are due May 7, 2025.
State of PFAS Report
The State of PFAS Report provides a qualitative assessment of the fate, sources, occurrence, and potential impacts of PFAS on the environment and human health to inform decision-making on PFAS in Canada. The term PFAS refers to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s definition, which is: “fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), that is, with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS.” The class of PFAS is comprised of substances meeting this definition. ECCC states that the definition captures substances with a wide range of structures and properties, from discrete chemicals, such as perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorosulfonic acids, and fluorotelomer alcohols, to side-chain fluorinated polymers, perfluoropolyethers, and fluoropolymers. According to ECCC, some PFAS on the market also possess structural attributes other than perfluoroalkyl chains (for example, inclusion of ether linkages or chlorine atoms in the fluorinated hydrocarbon chains).
The State of PFAS Report notes that there is evidence to suggest that fluoropolymers may have significantly different exposure and hazard profiles when compared with other PFAS in the class. ECCC defines fluoropolymers as “polymers made by polymerization or copolymerization of olefinic monomers (at least 1 of which contains fluorine bonded to 1 or both of the olefinic carbon atoms) to form a carbon-only polymer backbone with fluorine atoms directly bonded to it.” According to ECCC, given information suggesting their differences from the other PFAS in the class, additional work on fluoropolymers is warranted. ECCC does not address PFAS meeting the definition of fluoropolymers within the State of PFAS Report. ECCC plans to consider them in a separate assessment.
According to the State of PFAS Report, the following is known on the basis of current information:
The broad use of PFAS, their transport in the environment, and their ubiquitous presence have resulted in continuous environmental and human exposure to multiple PFAS, a finding that is supported by both environmental monitoring and human biomonitoring studies, including higher exposures in certain human subpopulations;
Given that PFAS are extremely persistent and have a broad range of uses leading to continued releases to the environment, the amount of PFAS in the environment is expected to increase;
Exposure to well-studied PFAS can affect multiple systems and organs in both humans and wildlife. Recent information demonstrates that effects on human health occur at lower levels than indicated by previous studies;
Some well-studied PFAS have demonstrated the potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in food webs to an extent that can cause adverse effects in biota, even at low environmental concentrations; and
Potential for cumulative exposure and effects are important considerations as most humans and wildlife exposures occur to unknown mixtures of PFAS.
On the basis of what is known about well-studied PFAS and the potential for other PFAS to behave similarly, and on the expectation that combined exposures to multiple PFAS increase the likelihood of detrimental impacts, ECCC states that it concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets the criteria under CEPA Section 64(a) as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have immediate or long-term harmful effects on the environment or its biological diversity. ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, does not meet the criteria under CEPA Section 64(b), however, as these substances are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.
According to the State of PFAS Report, on the basis of what is known about well-studied PFAS and the potential for other PFAS to behave similarly, and on the expectation that combined exposures to multiple PFAS increase the likelihood of detrimental impacts, ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets the criteria under CEPA Section 64(c) as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
ECCC therefore concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets one or more of the criteria set out in CEPA Section 64.
According to the State of PFAS Report, well-studied PFAS meet the persistence criteria set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA. Based on available information and structural similarities, ECCC expects that other substances within the class of PFAS are also highly persistent or transform to persistent PFAS. ECCC states that it therefore determines that the class of PFAS meets the persistence criteria as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA. ECCC notes that given that fluoropolymers have been excluded from this assessment, they are also excluded from this determination with regard to the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
ECCC states that there is a high concern identified for the biomagnification (BMF) and trophic magnification (TMF) potential of well-studied PFAS in air-breathing organisms; the numeric criteria for bioaccumulation, outlined in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations, however, are based on bioaccumulation data for freshwater aquatic species that do not account for biomagnification potential. Therefore, application of the criteria would not reflect the concern for dietary-based biomagnification, the primary route of food web exposure identified for well-studied PFAS. As a result, according to ECCC, the bioaccumulation potential of PFAS cannot reasonably be determined according to the regulatory criteria set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
Proposed Risk Management Approach
ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meet the criteria under CEPA Sections 64(a) and (c), as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have immediate or long-term harmful effects on the environment or its biological diversity, and that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
For the purpose of CEPA Section 77(6)(c)(i), ECCC proposes the following new risk management actions through a phased prohibition under CEPA:
Phase 1: Prohibition of the use of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, not currently regulated in firefighting foams, due to high potential for environmental and human exposure.
Phase 2: Prohibition of the uses of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, not needed for the protection of health, safety, or the environment, which includes consumer applications. ECCC states that prioritization of uses for prohibition is based on, and will take into account, costs and benefits, availability of suitable alternatives, and other socio-economic considerations. Proposed uses to be regulated in Phase 2 include:
Cosmetics;
Natural health products and non-prescription drugs;
Food packaging materials, food additives, and non-industrial food contact products such as paper plates, bowls, and cups;
Paint and coating, adhesive and sealant, and other building materials available to consumers;
Consumer mixtures such as cleaning products, waxes, and polishes;
Textile uses (including in personal protective equipment (PPE) such as firefighting turnout gear); and
Ski waxes.
Phase 3: Prohibition of the uses of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, requiring further evaluation of the role of PFAS for which currently there may not be feasible alternatives and taking into consideration socio-economic factors, including:
Fluorinated gas applications;
Prescription drugs (human and veterinary);
Medical devices;
Industrial food contact materials;
Industrial sectors such as mining and petroleum; and
Transport and military applications.
ECCC states that at each phase of risk management it will consider exemptions, when necessary, with attention to feasible alternatives and socio-economic factors. To inform ECCC’s risk management decision-making, information on the following topics should be provided by May 7, 2025):
Availability of alternatives to PFAS, or lack thereof, in products and applications in which they are currently used;
Estimated timeframe to transition to alternatives to PFAS, including any challenges;
Socio-economic impacts of replacing PFAS, including costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement; and
Quantities and concentrations of PFAS (including Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS RN®), units of measurement, and applications) in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold in Canada (if not already provided through the July 27, 2024, Section 71 notice).
Commentary
Canada’s release of the State of PFAS Report, proposed risk management approach, and proposed order to add PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of CEPA Schedule 1 follows soon after the January 29, 2025, deadline for mandatory reporting for 312 PFAS. In its July 27, 2024, Canada Gazette notice, Canada stated that it required information for the purpose of assessing whether the 312 PFAS listed in the notice “are toxic or are capable of becoming toxic, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control the listed substances.” The March 8, 2025, proposed order acknowledges that “[t]he annual quantity of PFAS used in Canada is unknown, as the information required to estimate this parameter (for example type and concentrations of PFAS in products available to consumers and in commercial and industrial applications) was not identified at the time of this analysis.” Canada states that it anticipates that the mandatory survey will “provide insight on annual quantities of PFAS used in Canada,” but it may be more likely that the survey will highlight the complexity of the supply chain and the difficulty in obtaining information from suppliers.
Stakeholders should carefully review the proposed risk management approach. Canada requests information on the availability of PFAS alternatives, the estimated timeframe to transition to alternatives, the costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement, and the quantities and concentrations of PFAS in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold in Canada (if not already reported through the mandatory survey). It is unlikely many entities will volunteer such specific information on PFAS in their products and companies that were not subject to the mandatory survey may not know. Yet without evidence on the critical use of PFAS in products and the lack of alternatives, Canada may begin prohibiting uses.
Most agree that ultimately the proposal will succeed, and PFAS will be deemed CEPA toxic and listed on Part 2 of CEPA Schedule 1. Given the PFAS risk evaluations of many other authoritative bodies, it is more likely than not that ECCC’s scientific determination is defensible. That the proposal seeks to exempt fluoropolymers is noteworthy, however, and stakeholders may wish to support the exemption.
Regulations on the Implementation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China – Foreign-Owned Intellectual Property Can Be Seized
On March 23, 2025, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China promulgated the Regulations on the Implementation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China (实施〈中华人民共和国反外国制裁法〉的规定). Article 7 of the Regulations specifically allows for the seizure of intellectual property of those that “directly or indirectly participate in the drafting, decision-making, or implementation of the discriminatory restrictive measures in Article 3 of Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law.” Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Law reads, “Where foreign nations violate international law and basic norms of international relations to contain or suppress our nation under any kind of pretext or based on the laws of those nations to employ discriminatory restrictive measures against our nation’s citizens or interfere with our nation’s internal affairs, our nation has the right to employ corresponding countermeasures.”
Article 7 of the Regulations reads:
The seizure, detention, and freezing referred to in Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law shall be implemented by the public security, finance, natural resources, transportation, customs, market supervision, financial management, intellectual property and other relevant departments of the State Council in accordance with their duties and powers.
Other types of property in Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Act include cash, bills, bank deposits, securities, fund shares, equity, intellectual property rights, accounts receivable and other property and property rights.
Relevant Articles of Law follow:
Article 3: The People’s Republic of China opposes hegemony and power politics and opposes any country’s interference in China’s internal affairs by any means and under any pretext.
Where foreign nations violate international law and basic norms of international relations to contain or suppress our nation under any kind of pretext or based on the laws of those nations to employ discriminatory restrictive measures against our nation’s citizens or interfere with our nation’s internal affairs, our nation has the right to employ corresponding countermeasures.
Article 4: The relevant departments of the State Council may decide to enter persons or organizations that directly or indirectly participate in the drafting, decision-making, or implementation of the discriminatory restrictive measures provided for in article 3 of this Law in a countermeasure list.
Article 5: In addition to the individuals and organizations listed on the countermeasure list in accordance with Article 4 of this Law, the relevant departments of the State Council may also decide to employ countermeasures against the following individuals and organizations:
(1) The spouses and immediate relatives of individuals listed on the countermeasure list;
(2) Senior managers or actual controllers of organizations included in the countermeasures list;
(3) Organizations in which individuals included in the countermeasure list serve as senior management;
(4) Organizations in which persons included in the countermeasure list are the actual controllers or participate in establishment and operations;
Article 6: In accordance with their respective duties and division of labor, the relevant departments of the State Council may decide to employ one or more of the following measures against the individuals and organizations provided for in Articles 4 and 5 of this Law, based on the actual situation:
(1) Not issuing visas, denying entry, canceling visas, or deportation;
(2) Sealing, seizing, or freezing movable property, real estate, and all other types of property within the [mainland] territory of our country;
(3) Prohibiting or restricting relevant transactions, cooperation, and other activities with organizations and individuals within the [mainland] territory of our country;
(4) Other necessary measures.
The full text of the Regulations is available here (Chinese only). A translation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law is available from NPC Observer here.
How the Trump Administration’s War on Cartels Will Reshape the Financial Sector
On March 11, 2025, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) aimed at disrupting drug trafficking and money laundering along the southwestern border. The GTO significantly lowers the Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money service businesses (MSBs) operating in 30 zip codes across California and Texas. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized the move as part of a broader effort to curb cartel influence, underscoring “deep concern with the significant risk to the U.S. financial system [from] the cartels, drug traffickers, and other criminal actors along the Southwest border.”
Despite its broader deregulatory agenda, the Trump administration has made clear that financial crime regulations — particularly those targeting money laundering, sanctions compliance, and illicit financing — are exceptions to its broader policy shift. The administration’s intensified crackdown on drug cartels underscores the financial sector’s growing role in national security and foreign policy enforcement. Banks and regulated institutions operating along the U.S.-Mexico border, or with substantial exposure to Mexico and Central America, must prepare for heightened compliance and due diligence expectations.
The Southwest Border GTO: A Glimpse into FinCEN’s Enforcement Priorities
GTOs compel financial institutions to implement heightened monitoring and reporting measures within specific high-risk regions. These orders, typically in effect for 180 days with the possibility of renewal, serve as a key intelligence-gathering and enforcement tool to disrupt illicit financial flows.
The March 11 GTO affects MSBs — including foreign exchange dealers, check cashers, issuers of traveler’s checks, and money transmitters — rather than banks. However, its implications extend far beyond these institutions. The drastic reduction of the CTR threshold to $200 reflects the cartels’ ability to efficiently launder drug proceeds through small, frequent transactions that evade traditional detection mechanisms.
Should the data gathered from this GTO indicate widespread illicit activity, regulators may extend its reach to regional and community banks, imposing even greater compliance burdens. More critically, the order signals heightened regulatory scrutiny on financial institutions’ roles in detecting and preventing cartel-related transactions. Banks with exposure to high-risk sectors must proactively enhance monitoring systems, train staff on emerging threats, and prepare to demonstrate robust compliance measures during regulatory examinations.
Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations: A Paradigm Shift for Financial Institutions
On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order initiating the designation of certain drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). On February 20, the State Department formally classified eight cartels under this designation, triggering sweeping legal and financial consequences.
Under U.S. law, FTO designation prohibits financial institutions from conducting transactions with these organizations and mandates the immediate blocking or freezing of assets linked to them. The move significantly expands the enforcement scope of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which oversees sanctions on terrorist organizations and other prohibited entities.
For financial institutions, this shift requires a fundamental reassessment of compliance strategies. Banks must refine sanctions screening processes, update risk management frameworks, and bolster due diligence measures to ensure they do not inadvertently facilitate transactions tied to these entities. Even transactions that do not explicitly list cartel-affiliated individuals or businesses may pose risks, necessitating enhanced scrutiny of financial flows originating from cartel-controlled regions.
In addition to shifting compliance strategies, the new FTO designation carries with it a risk for increased civil litigation against banks under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). From approximately 2014 to present, federal courts throughout the country have seen an increase in civil matters against banks for providing financial services to FTOs and/or their affiliates, and therefore aiding and abetting acts of terrorism. While these claims ordinarily involve foreign banks predominantly located in the Middle East, Russia, China, and Europe, this new designation and the accompanying GTO could result in similar lawsuits against U.S. depository institutions.
Cartels have embedded themselves in diverse sectors — including agriculture, mining, transportation, and even financial services — complicating compliance efforts. Institutions that fail to adapt face increased criminal and civil liabilities, underscoring the urgent need for proactive risk mitigation measures.
The Road Ahead: Navigating an Intensified Regulatory Landscape
As the Trump administration intensifies efforts to dismantle cartel financial networks, financial institutions must brace for a rapidly evolving regulatory environment. Enhanced reporting obligations, stricter compliance requirements, and expanded due diligence mandates are set to redefine risk management strategies across the sector.
Institutions operating along the U.S.-Mexico border will be particularly affected, navigating the dual pressures of FinCEN’s GTO mandates and broader cartel-related sanctions. Strengthening internal controls, refining anti-money laundering frameworks, and integrating advanced transaction monitoring tools will be critical in maintaining compliance and mitigating legal risks.
While these regulatory shifts may impose short-term costs, they ultimately safeguard financial institutions from unwitting involvement in illicit activities. More importantly, they reinforce the industry’s pivotal role in national security efforts, ensuring that the financial system remains a bulwark against transnational crime.
By staying ahead of regulatory developments and embracing a proactive compliance posture, banks and financial institutions can not only protect themselves but also contribute meaningfully to the broader fight against cartel-driven financial crime.
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.
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.
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.
HSE Publishes UK REACH Report (2023 to 2024) and Work Programme (2024 to 2025)
The United Kingdom’s (UK) Health and Safety Executive (HSE) announced on March 21, 2025, that it has published the following annual report and work program on activities under the UK regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (UK REACH):
UK REACH Report, which outlines the relevant activities covering the 2023 to 2024 Work Programme; and
UK REACH Work Programme, which describes operational work for 2024 to 2025.
The UK REACH Report provides a summary of achievements, including:
Topic
Deliverable
Target
Outcome
Registration
Complete the processing of all Article 26 inquiries and, within three weeks of receipt, all new UK REACH registrations
100 percent
Met
Dossier evaluation
Meet legal obligations in relation to compliance checking of registration dossiers
Examine testing proposals included in the registration dossiers to ensure that unnecessary animal testing is avoided
No fewer than 20 percent to meet legal obligations
100 percent
Met
Substance evaluation
Evaluate substances in the Rolling Action Plan (RAP)
Evaluate one
Met
Authorization
Complete the processing of received applications within the statutory deadline
100 percent
Met
Substance of very high concern (SVHC) identification
Undertake an initial assessment of substances that have been submitted for SVHC identification under the European Union (EU) REACH during 2022/23 and consider if they are appropriate for SVHC identification under UK REACH
Assess up to five
Met
Regulatory management option analysis (RMOA)
Complete RMOAs initiated in 2022-2023
Initiate RMOAs for substances identified as priorities
Up to ten
Up to five
One completed, nine ongoing
None prioritized
Restriction
Complete ongoing restriction opinions
Begin Annex 15 restriction dossiers
Initiate scoping work for restrictions
Two
One
Two
One complete, one delayed
Met (March 2023)
Met
HSE notes that in preparing the UK REACH Work Programme, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and the Scottish and Welsh governments (the Appropriate Authorities) work closely with HSE and the Environment Agency to prioritize issues for regulatory action under UK REACH. The UK REACH Work Programme summary of objectives includes the following:
Topic
Deliverable
Target
Registration/Product and Process Orientated Research and Development (PPORD)
Complete the processing of all Article 26 inquiries and, within three weeks of receipt, all new UK REACH registrations
100 percent
Dossier evaluation
Meet legal obligations in relation to compliance checking of registration dossiers
Examine testing proposals included in registration dossiers to ensure that unnecessary animal testing is avoided
No fewer than 20 percent of received registration dossiers, to meet legal obligations
100 percent
Substance evaluation
Complete the evaluation of substances in the RAP
Complete one
Authorization
Complete the processing of received applications within the statutory deadline
100 percent
SVHC identification
Undertake an initial assessment of substances that have been submitted for SVHC identification under EU REACH during 2023/24 and consider if they are appropriate for SVHC identification under UK REACH
Assess up to six
RMOA
Complete RMOAs
Up to nine
Restriction
Complete ongoing restriction opinions (lead in ammunition)
Complete Annex 15 restriction dossiers for public consultation (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foam (FFF))
One
One