Left image: gnomeandi/Shutterstock.com
Right image: Peter Gudella/Shutterstock.com

全球粮食危机不断的恶化使2021年12月开通的中老铁路对中国来说更加重要。中国是否已采取措施来帮助老挝,让其可以更好地应对相关法律风险?从中国的角度来看,帮助老挝从此60亿美元的铁路项目中获得最大利益,同时将风险降至最低,这将加强两国关系,并且有利于中国在该地区的发展。Read more

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.Read more

Image: Heru Purwanto, Pomelo On The Tree, Publicdomainpictures.net

指导案例 160 号解决了一个根本性问题:植物新品种权授予时,哪些属于其保护范围?根据中国立法,授予品种权的植物的繁殖材料受到明确保护。然而,什么是“繁殖材料”?可惜的是,中国立法对此并未明确规定。指导案例160号对此类判定作出标准,从而填补了该法律空白。Read more

Image: Heru Purwanto, Pomelo On The Tree, Publicdomainpictures.net

Guiding Case No. 160 addresses a fundamental issue: when rights to a new plant variety are granted, what falls within the scope of protection?  According to China’s legislation, propagation materials of the plant for which variety rights have been granted are clearly protected.  Yet, what are “propagation materials”?  Unfortunately, no definition can be found in China’s legislation.  Guiding Case No. 160 fills the legal gap by setting the criteria for such determination.Read more

Image: Lilla Frerichs, Indian Corn 1, Publicdomainpictures.net

指导案例100号发布前,中国最高人民法院发布了指导案例92号,明确了这一原则:在侵害植物新品种权案件中,当相关的DNA指纹检测结果无法给出明确答案,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。指导案例100 号显示了被告可以采取哪些措施来满足这一举证责任。Read more

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: 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: 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: 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

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