Key Talks in 1992, Court Cases in 2024, and “New Quality Productive Forces”

Image: Mikhail Denishchenko, Production Technology (Publicdomainpictures.net)

由习近平主席于 2023 年提出的“新质生产力”一词,具有重大意义,因为中国领导层已确定了相关改革,其中提及不同类型的投资。已故改革派领导人邓小平在 1992 年发表的重要谈话以及中国最近发布的精选案例有助于阐明该词的含义。法院在这些案例中为了支持“新质生产力”的发展而采取的行动,能让投资者更好地评估相关机会。Read more

Key Talks in 1992, Court Cases in 2024, and “New Quality Productive Forces”

Image: Mikhail Denishchenko, Production Technology (Publicdomainpictures.net)

Coined by President XI Jinping in 2023, the term “new quality productive forces” is of great significance because related reforms, with reference to various types of investment, have been identified by the Chinese leadership. Key talks given in 1992 by the late reformist leader DENG Xiaoping and select court cases recently released by China help illuminate the meaning of the term. Actions taken by the courts in these cases to support the development of “new quality productive forces” allow investors to better assess related opportunities.Read more

In Brief

Images: icon0 com, China Flag Themes Idea, Publicdomainpictures.net &
Victoria Borodinova, Brazil Flag, Brazil, Friendship, Publicdomainpictures.net

In their recent joint statement on climate change, China and Brazil stress the need to combine “urgent climate responses” with the protection of nature to, among other goals, eradicate hunger. Accomplishing these goals will not be easy because some are conflicting. High-yielding seeds needing little agricultural inputs to grow seem to be the panacea required. Are legal tools available to help incentivize the development of such seeds?Read more

In Brief

Images: icon0 com, China Flag Themes Idea, Publicdomainpictures.net &
Victoria Borodinova, Brazil Flag, Brazil, Friendship, Publicdomainpictures.net

在中国和巴西近期发布的“应对气候变化联合声明”中,两国强调需将“紧急气候响应”和保护自然相结合,以实现消除饥饿等目标。因为有些目标相互矛盾,所以要实现这些目标并非易事。在此情况下,不需要投放大量农业资源而即可生长的高产种子似乎是解决此困境所需的灵丹妙药。是否有法律工具可以帮助激励此类种子的发展?Read more

SinoForum&Foresight

Image: Charles Rondeau, Green Dollar, Publicdomainpictures.net

Core Climate由香港交易及结算所有限公司于2022年10月推出。作为中国一个特别行政区,香港将如何利用Core Climate助力中国大湾区以及中国其他地区实现它们的气候目标?此外,Core Climate 能否帮助香港成为亚洲可持续金融的领导者?Read more

SinoForum&Foresight

Image: Charles Rondeau, Green Dollar, Publicdomainpictures.net

Core Climate was launched by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited in October 2022. How can Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, leverage Core Climate to assist the country’s Greater Bay Area and other regions to accomplish their climate goals? Will Core Climate be able to help Hong Kong become a leader in sustainable finance in Asia?Read more

U.S.–China Relations, Climate Change, and Biodiversity Loss

Image: George Hodan, Tropical Sea Underwater With Corals (Publicdomainpictures.net)

美国国务卿安东尼·J·布林肯在其演讲中明确表示,中国是美国应对气候危机能力的“不可或缺”的一部分。他敦促中国与美国一起“加快”两国共同努力的“步伐”。拥有健康的原生植物和动物种群的生态系统有助于应对气候挑战。然而,许多生态系统受到生物多样性丧失的不利影响。中国如何应对这一丧失?Read more

U.S.–China Relations, Climate Change, and Biodiversity Loss

Image: George Hodan, Tropical Sea Underwater With Corals (Publicdomainpictures.net)

In his recent speech, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken clearly stated that China is “integral” to the United States’s ability to solve the climate crisis. He urged China to join the United States in “accelerating the pace” of their shared efforts. Ecosystems with healthy populations of native plants and animals help address climate challenges. Yet many ecosystems have been adversely affected by the loss of biodiversity. How does China tackle this loss?Read more

Guiding Case 177

Image: Linnaea Mallette, Giant Clam Under The Sea, Publicdomainpictures.net

2021年12月,中国最高人民法院发布了指导案例177号。该指导性案例说明了中国如何履行《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》规定的义务,保护海洋生物多样性。Read more

Guiding Case 177

Image: Linnaea Mallette, Giant Clam Under The Sea, Publicdomainpictures.net

In December 2021, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 177. The Guiding Case illustrates how China performs its obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to protect marine biodiversity.Read more

In Brief

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

In Brief

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

Guiding Case 160

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

Guiding Case 160

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

Plants

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

Guiding Case 100

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

Plants

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

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

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

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