>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 100 of the Supreme People's Court: Shandong Denghai Pioneer Seeds Co., Ltd. v. Shaanxi Nongfeng Seeds Co., Ltd. and Shanxi Dafeng Seeds Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of a new plant variety right)
指导案例100号:山东登海先锋种业有限公司诉陕西农丰种业有限责任公司、山西大丰种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 100 of the Supreme People's Court: Shandong Denghai Pioneer Seeds Co., Ltd. v. Shaanxi Nongfeng Seeds Co., Ltd. and Shanxi Dafeng Seeds Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of a new plant variety right) 指导案例100号:山东登海先锋种业有限公司诉陕西农丰种业有限责任公司、山西大丰种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
(Issued on December 19, 2018 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2018年12月19日发布)
Guiding Case No. 100 指导案例100号
Keywords: 关键词
civil; infringement of a new plant variety right; characteristics; DNA fingerprinting; DUS test report; distinctness 民事/侵害植物新品种权/特征特性/DNA指纹鉴定/DUS测试报告/特异性
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
Judging whether the characteristics of the alleged infringing reproductive material are the same as those of a protected variety is the prerequisite for determining whether the infringement of a new plant variety right is committed. When a DNA fingerprinting opinion indicates that the two are identical or similar, if the sued infringing party submits a DUS test report evidencing that through a growing trial, the alleged infringing variety is compared with the protected variety and found to be distinct, the infringement of a new plant variety right shall be determined not to have been committed. 判断被诉侵权繁殖材料的特征特性与授权品种的特征特性相同是认定构成侵害植物新品种权的前提。当DNA指纹鉴定意见为两者相同或相近似时,被诉侵权方提交DUS测试报告证明通过田间种植,被控侵权品种与授权品种对比具有特异性,应当认定不构成侵害植物新品种权。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Articles 2 and 6 of the Regulation of the People's Republic of China on Protection of New Varieties of Plants 中华人民共和国植物新品种保护条例》第2条、第6条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. as the owner of the new plant variety right in Xianyu 335 authorized Shandong Denghai Pioneer Seeds Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Denghai Company”) as the licensee to file civil action for infringement of the new plant variety right. On March 16, 2014, Denghai Company filed an action in the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City, Shaanxi province, alleging that in 2013, Shanxi Dafeng Seeds Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Dafeng Company”) and Shaanxi Nongfeng Seeds Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Nongfeng Company") sold corn seeds in packaging bearing Dafeng 30, which infringed the new plant variety right in Xianyu 335. On June 9, 2013, the Beijing Corn Seed Testing Center used a 3730XL DNA Analyzer and a 384-well PCR cycler to test the alleged infringing seeds received for testing according to the Maize Variety Identification Molecular Techniques (NY/T 1432-2007) and reached a conclusion: The 40 loci of sample to be tested YA2196 compared with those of control BGG253, Xianyu 335; zero different locus was identified; and the conclusion was that they were identical or remarkably similar. 先锋国际良种公司是“先玉335”植物新品种权的权利人,其授权山东登海先锋种业有限公司(以下简称“登海公司”)作为被许可人对侵害该植物新品种权提起民事诉讼。登海公司于2014年3月16日向陕西省西安市中级人民法院起诉称,2013年山西大丰种业有限公司(以下简称“大丰公司”)生产、陕西农丰种业有限责任公司(以下简称“农丰种业”)销售的外包装为“大丰30”的玉米种子侵害“先玉335”的植物新品种权。北京玉米种子检测中心于2013年6月9日对送检的被控侵权种子依据NY/T1432-2007玉米品种DNA指纹鉴定方法,使用3730XL型遗传分析仪,384孔PCR仪进行检测,结论为,待测样品编号YA2196与对照样品编号BGG253“先玉335”比较位点数40,差异位点数0,结论为相同或极近似。
According to the Statement on the Experiment on and Approval of the Corn Variety Dafeng 30 issued by the Crop Seed Station of Shanxi province on April 25, 2014, Dafeng Company applied for approval of Dafeng 30 in 2011, but failed to receive an approval that same year, because the Corn Research Center of the Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences identified no difference between the 40 loci under comparison of Dafeng 30 and those of Xianyu 335 by DNA fingerprinting and came to the conclusion that there was no manifest difference between the two varieties. Dafeng Company filed an objection. In 2011, the station commissioned the New Plant Variety Testing Center of the Ministry of Agriculture to conduct a DUS tests on Dafeng 30, to wit: tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. The conclusion was that Dafeng 30 was a distinct, uniform and stable variety different from Xianyu 335. The corn variety, Dafeng 30, as an approved and promoted variety, was qualified in the approval by the Crop Variety Approval Committees of Shanxi Province and Shaanxi Province in February 2012.
......
 山西省农业种子总站于2014年4月25日出具的《“大丰30”玉米品种试验审定情况说明》记载:“大丰30”作为大丰公司2011年申请审定的品种,由于北京市农林科学院玉米研究中心所作的DNA指纹鉴定认为“大丰30”与“先玉335”的40个比较位点均无差异,判定结论为两个品种无明显差异,2011年未通过审定。大丰公司提出异议,该站于2011年委托农业部植物新品种测试中心对“大丰30”进行DUS测试,即特异性(Distinctness)、一致性(Uniformity)和稳定性(Stability)测试,结论为“大丰30”具有特异性、一致性、稳定性,与“先玉335”为不同品种。“大丰30”玉米种作为审定推广品种,于2012年2月通过山西省、陕西省农作物品种审定委员会的审定。
......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥400.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese