Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net
中国最高人民法院发布指导案例92号、100号和160号，明确该国立法和司法解释尚未解决的植物新品种权保护的基本问题。然而，本文分析指出，这三个指导性案例的指导原则已经被纳入最高人民法院最新的植物新品种司法解释。考虑到这一点，这些指导性案例是否基本上已经失去了重要性？熊美英博士解释了为什么答案是否定的并讨论了相关的含义。Read more
Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net
The Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case Nos. 92, 100, and 160 to clarify fundamental issues related to the protection of rights to new plant varieties that were left unanswered by the country’s legislation and judicial interpretations. Yet, have these three Guiding Cases essentially lost their significance, considering that their guiding principles, as analyzed in this article, have already been incorporated into the Supreme People’s Court’s latest judicial interpretation related to new plant varieties? Dr. Mei Gechlik explains why the answer is negative and discusses related implications. Read more
Image: Lilla Frerichs, Indian Corn 1, Publicdomainpictures.net
Before the release of Guiding Case No. 100, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 92 to establish this principle: in a case involving infringement of rights to a new plant variety, when the related DNA fingerprinting test result cannot provide a clear answer, the allegedly infringing party, i.e., the defendant, has the burden to prove that the allegedly infringing plant is different from the plant for which variety rights have been granted. Guiding Case No. 100 shows what the defendant can do to meet this burden of proof.Read more
Image: kai Stachowiak, Background, Publicdomainpictures.net
Tom Tong, an international partner of Locke Lord LLP, recently founded Lawmato, an app that enables lawyers to provide online consultation to consumers, including individuals and small businesses, anywhere in the world via the robust audio/video communication capacities of the app. Apart from explaining how Lawmato has the potential to change the legal services industry, Mr. Tong draws on his more than 20 years of experience acting as liaison between U.S. and Chinese firms to share his insights about different challenges in doing deals in China and in the United States.Read more
上诉人（原审原告）：蔡新光。
委托诉讼代理人：于仁春，河北好望角律师事务所律师。
委托诉讼代理人：王婉君，山东健华律师事务所律师。
被上诉人（原审被告）：广州市润平商业有限公司。住所地：广东省广州市增城市新塘镇港口大道北金海岸城市广场。
法定代表人：魏正勤，该公司总经理。
委托诉讼代理人：李宁峰，广东佑德律师事务所律师。Read more
原告：蔡新光，男，汉族，1954年12月14日出生，住福建省平和县。
委托诉讼代理人：王婉君，山东健华律师事务所律师。
委托诉讼代理人：于仁春，河北好望角律师事务所律师。
被告：广州市润平商业有限公司，住所地广东省广州市增城市新塘镇。
法定代表人：魏正勤，总经理。
委托诉讼代理人：李宁峰、尹钧泰，分别为广东佑德律师事务所律师、实习律师。Read more
上诉人（原审原告）山东登海先锋种业有限公司，住所地山东省莱州市三山岛特别工业区。
法定代表人吴树科，该公司董事长。
委托代理人董慧芳，北京市永新智财律师事务所律师。
委托代理人贾庆忠，北京市永新智财律师事务所律师。
被上诉人（原审被告）陕西农丰种业有限责任公司，住所地陕西省西安市未央区北二环西段陕西农用物资市场B138-139号。
法定代表人赵永强，该公司总经理。Read more
再审申请人（一审原告、二审上诉人）：山东登海先锋种业有限公司。住所地：山东省莱州市三山岛特别工业区。
法定代表人：吴树科，该公司董事长。
委托代理人：丁峰，北京市广渡律师事务所律师。
委托代理人：刘少辉，北京市广渡律师事务所律师。
被申请人（一审被告、二审被上诉人）：陕西农丰种业有限责任公司。住所地：陕西省西安市未央区北二环西段陕西农用物资市场B138-139号。Read more
Image: Andrew Schmidt, Corn On The Cob, Publicdomainpictures.net
Guiding Case No. 92 provides guidance on an important issue frequently encountered in cases involving infringement of rights to new plant varieties: how to determine whether two plants are of the same variety, when the related DNA fingerprinting test result cannot provide a clear answer. According to this Guiding Case, when this happens, the allegedly infringing party, i.e., the defendant, has the burden to prove that the allegedly infringing plant is different from the plant for which variety rights have been granted. How did the court justify the shifting of the burden to the defendant?Read more
The material presented on this website is for general reference only.
SINOTALKS® LLC disclaims all liability for any inaccuracy, error, or incompleteness in such material.
本网站提供的材料仅供一般参考。
丝络谈有限公司不对此类材料中的任何不准确、错误或不完整内容承担任何责任。
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
© 2024 SINOTALKS® LLC | © 2024年 丝络谈有限公司
