Plants

On:
In: SinoInsights™ | 丝络灼见™

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

Guiding Case 100

On:
In: SinoRules&Cases™ | 丝络规则与案例™

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

Guiding Case 92

On:
In: SinoRules&Cases™ | 丝络规则与案例™

Image: Andrew Schmidt, Corn On The Cob, Publicdomainpictures.net

指导案例92号对侵害植物新品种权案件中经常遇到的一个重要问题提供指导：当相关的DNA指纹检测结果无法提供明确的答案，如何确定两植物是否属于同一品种？根据此指导性案例，发生这种情况时，被诉侵权人（即被告）有责任证明被诉侵权植物与授予品种权的植物不同。法院如何决定将责任转移至被告是合理的？Read more

Guiding Case 92

On:
In: SinoRules&Cases™ | 丝络规则与案例™

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