I. SPC Judicial Approach to Botanical Collection Ownership Disputes

The SPC treats “botanical collection ownership” disputes as falling into civil property + intellectual property hybrid protection, depending on the nature of the plant material:

1. If the plant is a protected variety → IP regime applies

Covered under:

• Plant Variety Rights (Seed Law + Civil Code IP rules)
• Infringement rules (propagation, sale, storage)

2. If it is a rare/collected botanical specimen → property law applies

Covered under:

• Civil Code rules on movable property ownership
• Rules on possession, custody, and unjust enrichment

3. If disputes arise from collection agreements → contract law applies

• Custody agreements
• Botanical garden/academic transfer agreements

4. Key SPC principles

• Source-based ownership (谁投入谁受益): ownership depends on lawful acquisition and investment
• Strict protection of biodiversity resources
• High evidentiary burden for proving originality of botanical claims
• Separation of possession vs ownership

II. 6 Important SPC / Chinese Judicial Cases

Case 1: “Sailate Apple Plant Variety Infringement Case”

• Court: SPC Intellectual Property Court
• Issue: Unauthorized propagation and sale of apple seedlings
• Holding:
  • Planting + selling seedlings = infringement of plant variety rights
  • Compensation ordered for commercial exploitation
• Principle:
  • Botanical propagation materials are legally protected property under IP law

📌 Significance: Establishes ownership protection over cultivated plant collections used commercially.
 

Case 2: “Three-Red Pomelo (San Hong Mi You) Case”

• Court: SPC IP Court
• Issue: Whether sale of fruit equals infringement of plant variety rights
• Holding:
  • Sale of harvested fruit is NOT infringement (not propagating material)
• Principle:
  • Distinction between biological product vs reproduction material

📌 Significance: Clarifies limits of ownership rights over botanical outputs.
 

Case 3: “Yang’s Golden Red Kiwi Variety Case”

• Court: SPC IP Court
• Issue: Unauthorized plantation of protected kiwi variety
• Holding:
  • Planting protected variety without authorization = infringement
• Principle:
  • Planting itself can constitute unlawful exploitation of botanical rights

📌 Significance: Confirms “cultivation = use of protected botanical asset”.
 

Case 4: “NP01154 Maize Hybrid Variety Case”

• Court: SPC (Guiding Case, 2025 batch)
• Issue: Large-scale seed production infringement
• Holding:
  • Multi-party liability (growers + warehouse + distributors)
  • Punitive damages applied (2× damages)
• Principle:
  • Entire botanical supply chain can be jointly liable

📌 Significance: Expands ownership liability to storage and logistics of plant materials.
 

Case 5: “Nongmai 88 Wheat Seed Dispute”

• Court: SPC Typical Case
• Issue: “Plain bag” seed distribution without authorization
• Holding:
  • Both sellers and warehouse operators liable
• Principle:
  • Possession of botanical materials implies legal responsibility if infringement is known

📌 Significance: Strengthens custody-based responsibility for plant collections.
 

Case 6: “Unauthorized Seed Sales Novelty Case (CALYPSO Bromeliad)”

• Court: SPC IP Court
• Issue: Whether unauthorized prior sales destroy plant novelty
• Holding:
  • Unauthorized sales do NOT destroy legal novelty of plant variety
• Principle:
  • Illegally circulated botanical material does not transfer ownership or legal validity

📌 Significance: Reinforces that illegal botanical circulation does not create ownership rights.
 

Case 7 (Additional): “Kiwi Cooperative Plantation Dispute”

• Court: SPC IP Court
• Issue: Cooperative planting of protected kiwi trees
• Holding:
  • Large-scale plantation = commercial exploitation requiring authorization
• Principle:
  • Collective farming does not override plant ownership rights

📌 Significance: Clarifies group cultivation does not nullify ownership rights of plant breeders.
 

III. Key Legal Principles Derived from SPC Practice

1. Botanical collection = “special movable property”

• Treated as property + biological asset
• Ownership depends on lawful acquisition, not physical possession alone

2. Plant materials are “controlled biological resources”

• Unauthorized propagation = infringement
• Even private cultivation may trigger liability if commercialized

3. Chain liability principle

• Growers
• Storage holders
• Distributors
  → all may be jointly liable

4. Evidence rule (very strict)

Courts require:

• Genetic testing
• Origin documentation
• Seed licensing proof

5. Distinction rule

• Fruit = commodity (no IP restriction in many cases)
• Seeds/seedlings = protected “reproductive material”

IV. Conclusion

In SPC jurisprudence, “botanical collection ownership disputes” are not treated as a single category but are resolved through a hybrid framework of property law, intellectual property law, and contract law. The courts consistently prioritize:

• Protection of plant breeders
• Control of biological reproduction materials
• Strict liability across supply chains
• Prevention of unauthorized propagation of botanical assets