Left image: gnomeandi/Shutterstock.com
Right image: Peter Gudella/Shutterstock.com
The worsening food crisis around the world has made the China–Laos Railway, which opened in December 2021, even more important to China. Has China taken steps to help Laos so that the latter can manage related legal risks better? From China’s perspective, helping Laos maximize its benefits from this USD 6 billion railway project while minimizing the risks involved will strengthen the two countries’ relations and bode well for China’s presence in that region.
Only a few days after the launch of SINOTALKS.COM, Dr. Mei Gechlik began publishing a biweekly newsletter titled SINOTALKS.COM In Brief. The goal for this newsletter is to demystify Chinese law and policy so that readers will be able to craft evidence-based strategies for their China-related issues.
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.
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.