China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Several Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Infringement upon the Right to New Plant Varieties (II)

Wed, 22 Sep 2021
Categories: Insights

Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Infringement upon the Right to New Plant Varieties (II) (最高人民法院关于审理侵害植物新品种权纠纷案件具体应用法律问题的若干规定(二))  were promulgated on 5 July 2021, and entered into force on 7 July 2021.

There are 25 articles in total. The Provisions aim to correctly hear cases involving the infringement upon the right to new plant varieties.

The key points are as follows:

  1. Where the owner or an interested person of the right to new plant varieties presents evidence to prove that the propagation material of an accused infringing variety has the same name as that of an authorized variety, the people’s court may presume that the propagation material of this accused infringing variety belongs to that of the authorized variety. Where there is evidence to prove that it does not belong to the propagation material of the authorized variety, the people’s court may hold that the accused infringer has committed the act of counterfeiting a variety and determine civil liability with reference to relevant provisions on counterfeiting registered trademarks.

  2. Where the accused infringer claims that the following acts of production and propagation of an authorized variety constitute scientific research activities, the people’s court shall uphold such claim: (1) cultivating new varieties by using authorized varieties; and (2) reusing the propagation materials of authorized varieties, after cultivating new varieties by using authorized varieties, for the purpose of application for the right to new plant varieties, variety examination and approval, and variety registration.

  3. Where the specialized issues in a case involving the infringement upon the right to new plant varieties need to be identified, the parties concerned shall choose an expert witness through negotiations from the list of expert witnesses in the relevant fields or the expert witnesses recommended to the people’s court by the competent agriculture and forestry authorities under the State Council (the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and National Forestry and Grassland Administration). If the negotiations fail, the people’s court shall appoint an expert witness from the aforesaid expert witnesses.

 

 

Cover Photo by Bangyu Wang (https://unsplash.com/@bangyuwang) on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

This follow-up article focuses on the Chinese Court's detailed review of the Shanghai International Corporation case in 2023, highlighting the significance of reciprocity in cross-border bankruptcy proceedings and underscoring China's evolving approach to recognizing foreign judgments (See In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1).

SPC Interprets International Treaties & Practices in Chinese Courts

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) reaffirmed the supremacy of international treaties over domestic laws in foreign-related civil and commercial cases with its “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of International Treaties and International Practices”(关于审理涉外民商事案件适用国际条约和国际惯例若干问题的解释).

China’s Wenzhou Court Recognizes a Singapore Monetary Judgment

In 2022, a local Chinese court in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, ruled to recognize and enforce a monetary judgment made by the Singapore State Courts, as highlighted in one of the typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recently released by China’s Supreme People’s Court (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No.4).

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).

Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

In 2016, the Singapore High Court refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement, citing uncertainty about the nature of such settlement statements, also known as ‘(civil) mediation judgments’ (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (B) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (3)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on how conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through mechanisms such as lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens.