Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted a case in which the plaintiff Jiangsu Shennong Dafeng Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. the defendant, the plant new variety review committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, applied for refusal of an administrative dispute. The case involved the "Nongmai 168" wheat variety of the plaintiff Shennong Dafeng Company.
The plaintiff stated: On June 23, 2016, the Office for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of the Ministry of Agriculture accepted the plaintiff's application for the variety rights of "Nongmai 168". On July 23, 2020, the Office of New Variety Protection of the Ministry of Agriculture made the substance according to the "Plant Variety Specificity, Consistency and Stability Test Report" (referred to as DUS Test Report) issued by the Plant New Variety Testing (Nanjing) Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Review the rejection decision. It rejected the plaintiff's "Nongmai 168" variety right application. The plaintiff filed a review with the defendant, New Plant Variety Review Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The defendant decided on December 21, 2020, maintaining the substantive review rejection decision. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the defendant’s retrial decision, so they sued the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and requested an order to revoke the accused decision.
The plaintiff claimed: "Nongmai 168" is a semi-winter wheat variety, and "Huaimai 21" tested and controlled by the Nanjing branch is a weak spring wheat variety. The suitable growth ecological area for the two is the waterland variety type area of Huanghuai winter wheat. The DUS test report issued by the Nanjing Sub-center shows that the test location is Nanjing, which belongs to the winter wheat variety type area in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. It is not an ecological area ideal for planting "Nongmai 168" and "Huaimai 21". The characteristics of plants that can be expressed in an ecological zone suitable for planting. Therefore, the DUS test report issued by the Nanjing branch cannot be used as a basis for determining whether "Nongmai 168" is specific. The DUS test samples that the plaintiff entrusted by the Plant New Variety Testing (Yuanyang) Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs to be conducted are of real source and suitable test location. The DUS test report issued can determine that "Nongmai 168" is specific. The defendant's decision to maintain the original substantive review rejection decision on the "Nongmai 168" variety was incorrect.
The case is currently under further trial.
