Adverse Consequences for Refusal to Produce Evidence After the Burden of Proof Shifts

— (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 562

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court rendered a second-instance judgment in a dispute over infringement of watermelon plant variety rights. The judgment further clarifies standards for ascertaining parentage facts, shifting the burden of proof, and reviewing applications for re-appraisal on appeal in hybrid watermelon variety infringement cases, providing judicial guidance for the practical difficulty in seed-industry enforcement that “parents are controlled by the alleged infringer and rights holders struggle to obtain evidence.”

The basic facts are as follows. The case concerns the protected variety “Quan R701,” a plant variety of ordinary watermelon, owned by Quan Certain Melon & Vegetable Company. Using “Quan R701” as the male parent, the company bred the hybrid watermelon variety “Quan Yin Li Yuan” and completed variety registration. Market investigation indicated that Qian Certain Agriculture Company, without permission, allegedly repeatedly used the protected variety “Quan R701” as a parent to produce and sell hybrid watermelon seeds named “Rong Yao Qi Lin.” Quan Certain sued, seeking an order that Qian Certain immediately stop infringement and pay damages and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 1 million. In enforcement, Quan Certain itself commissioned testing of notarized purchases of the accused “Rong Yao Qi Lin” against “Quan Yin Li Yuan,” concluding they were similar varieties. At first instance the court ordered judicial appraisal of variety authenticity, which likewise found them similar. Quan Certain also commissioned parentage testing, which indicated that genetically “Quan R701” was a parent of “Rong Yao Qi Lin.” Qian Certain denied infringement, asserted independent breeding of “Rong Yao Qi Lin,” and sought re-appraisal by other methods. The first-instance court repeatedly explained Qian Certain’s duty to produce evidence and required submission of the “Rong Yao Qi Lin” parent seeds under its control for comparison, but Qian Certain refused without justified reason and raised unreasonable conditions such as requiring the rights holder to pay risk fees.

Combining the judicial appraisal, multiple testing reports submitted by the variety owner, and watermelon breeding genetics, the first-instance court held the evidence sufficient to infer that the accused seeds used the same parent as “Quan Yin Li Yuan,” and ordered Qian Certain to stop infringing “Quan R701” plant variety rights and pay RMB 1 million in damages and reasonable expenses. Qian Certain appealed and, on appeal, stated it could submit parent seeds and sought re-appraisal.

On second instance, the Supreme People’s Court held there was no evidence that the first-instance judicial appraisal suffered serious procedural illegality, insufficient basis, or other statutory grounds requiring re-appraisal, so its probative force should be affirmed. Besides court-commissioned appraisal, the rights holder’s own authenticity and parentage tests mutually corroborated and could serve as important bases for fact-finding. Under watermelon breeding genetics and the appraisal opinions, it was highly likely that the accused hybrid used protected variety “Quan R701” as a parent. The burden of proof then shifted to Qian Certain, which actually held the parent materials; after repeated explanations of the duty and consequences, its unjustified refusal constituted obstruction of evidence. Its request, only after losing at first instance, to submit parents and seek re-appraisal on appeal was refused for lack of effective contrary evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment affirmed.

Parent breeding materials of hybrids are mostly held by breeders/producers, making acquisition difficult for variety owners and raising enforcement barriers. Ascertaining parentage has long been a technical-fact difficulty in hybrid plant variety infringement. This case establishes a clear rule: where the rights holder proves the accused hybrid is similar to a hybrid that uses the protected variety as a parent, and breeding genetics support a high probability that the accused hybrid used the protected variety as a parent, the burden shifts to the alleged infringer; if the alleged infringer refuses after explanation at first instance to produce parent evidence under its control and only on appeal offers to submit materials and seeks re-appraisal, the court must review strictly and must not readily allow re-appraisal.

The rule both protects original breeding innovation and lowers rights holders’ evidentiary burden, while preventing abuse of re-appraisal to delay litigation, offering clearer guidance for technical fact-finding, burden allocation, and appraisal-request review in similar cases.

Source：Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court；2026-10-14；https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6160.html