## Facts

- A seed company held rights to a protected corn hybrid variety known as “Xianyu 335.”
- Two other seed companies sought approval and marketed a corn variety called “Dafeng 30.”
- A DNA fingerprinting appraisal reported “Dafeng 30” as identical or highly similar to “Xianyu 335,” and indicated a very low difference value (below 2).
- The approval authority initially rejected “Dafeng 30,” after which the applicants pursued further examination.
- A later DUS (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability) field-planting test report concluded “Dafeng 30” was distinct from “Xianyu 335” based on phenotypic characteristics and stability in field trials.
- The variety-right holder sued for infringement, asserting that “Dafeng 30” was the protected variety in substance.
- The defendants relied on the DUS report (and related appraisals) to show that “Dafeng 30” was a distinct variety.
- The trial court rejected the infringement claim; intermediate appellate review affirmed; a further appeal was dismissed, and the decision was designated as Guiding Case No. 100.

## Issues

1. What constitutes “the same” plant variety for infringement of new plant variety rights: genetic similarity alone or a comparison of the propagating material’s features and characteristics.
2. How to allocate and discharge the burden of proof when DNA fingerprinting indicates a low difference value suggesting sameness or high similarity.
3. Whether, and under what conditions, a DUS field-test report can rebut a DNA-based inference of sameness.

## Decision

- The court held that infringement requires a prior finding that the alleged infringing propagating material has the same features and characteristics as the protected variety.
- A low DNA difference value may create an inference of sameness and shift to the defendant the burden to prove the varieties are different.
- The defendants rebutted the inference by submitting a credible DUS field-test report showing distinctness from the protected variety.
- Because “Dafeng 30” was proven distinct, the infringement claim was denied and the lower judgments were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Infringement of new plant variety rights depends on whether the features and characteristics of the alleged infringing propagation material are the same as those of the protected variety.
- DNA fingerprinting evidence can support a prima facie inference of sameness or high similarity and shift the burden to the alleged infringer to prove difference.
- DNA evidence is not necessarily conclusive; courts must evaluate it together with other scientifically reliable evidence bearing on varietal distinctness.
- A DUS test report based on field planting can be strong proof of distinctness, especially when produced by a competent testing body, conducted under standardized protocols, and using appropriate comparative samples to show stable trait differences.
- Administrative variety-approval outcomes do not automatically control infringement findings, but the DUS testing underlying approval can be highly probative when methodologically reliable and directly addresses the contested comparison.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a new plant variety infringement claim where DNA testing suggested high similarity, holding that infringement requires sameness in the propagating material’s features and characteristics and that a reliable DUS field-test report can rebut a DNA-based inference of sameness by proving distinctness.


Shandong Denghai Pioneer Seeds Co. v. Shaanxi Nongfeng Seed Indus. Co. & Shanxi Dafeng Seed Indus. Co., Guiding Case No. 100 (Sup. People’s Ct. 2018)