In December 2024, a landmark legal battle involving temporary protection period royalties and infringement claims regarding the "Sailate" apple plant variety concluded with a final ruling by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) , marking a pivotal moment in intellectual property rights protection in China. 

The dispute originated in 2018 when a modern agricultural company in Lingtai county, Gansu province was found to have unlawfully produced, propagated, and sold seedlings of the "Sailate" apple variety without authorization, while also profiting from the sale of harvested apples.

A New Zealand-based international company, authorized by the rights holder—a New Zealand research institute that legally registered the variety in China, filed a lawsuit against the infringing company, seeking an injunction, deactivation of infringing materials, and compensation of 5 million yuan to protect its rights and market order.

The Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled in the first instance that the defendant must cease all infringing activities, deactivate unauthorized propagation materials, and pay 3.3 million yuan in compensation, including double punitive damages for deliberate and large-scale violations. The SPC upheld the judgment in the second instance, emphasizing that the cultivation and sale of harvested apples constituted a continuous chain of infringement.

Luo Xia, a senior judge at the SPC and presiding judge of the second-instance adjudication of the case, emphasized the need to assess whether the planting of "Sailate" apple trees constituted infringement, determine if the sale of "Sailate" apples was non-infringing and the calculation of compensation if the selling behavior is decided as infringing, and decide on the appropriate measures to prevent further infringement on such crops.

The SPC upheld the first-instance judgment, ordering the Lingtai agricultural company to cease infringement and imposing double punitive damages, resulting in a total compensation of 3.3 million yuan for losses, temporary protection fees and reasonable expenses.

The court meticulously examined evidence, including on-site inspection reports formed during the plant variety rights application process, and notarized evidence of sampling by the rights holder, ultimately affirming the validity of inspection reports in determining the protection scope of the authorized plant variety. 

This case exemplifies China's commitment to equal and lawful protection of intellectual property rights in the agricultural sector, regardless of the origin of the entities involved, Luo said.

The judgments in cases like the "Sailate" apple dispute demonstrate China's steadfast resolve in providing a fair, just, and transparent environment governed by a sound legal framework for all market entities, and supporting innovation and high-quality development in the agricultural sector through stringent judicial judgment.