編者按

      10月16日(ri)是世界(jie)糧(liang)食日(ri)，聯(lian)合(he)(he)國(guo)糧(liang)食及農業組織確定今年全球活動主題(ti)為“手拉手共倡多樣美食，聚合(he)(he)力(li)同(tong)創美好未(wei)來(lai)”；我國(guo)糧(liang)食安全宣傳周(zhou)主題(ti)為“糧(liang)食節約   人(ren)人(ren)有責(ze)”。最高人(ren)民法院知(zhi)識(shi)產(chan)權法庭自2019年1月1日(ri)成立以(yi)來(lai)，深入(ru)貫徹(che)落實習近平總書記關于加(jia)快推進種業振(zhen)興(xing)的重要(yao)論述，嚴格依法審理(li)各類種業知(zhi)識(shi)產(chan)權案(an)件，努力(li)為種業振(zhen)興(xing)營造良好法治環(huan)境(jing)。

判斷被(bei)訴侵權(quan)品種與涉案授權(quan)品種的同一性時不(bu)應輕易適用擴大位(wei)點(dian)加測

     ; ——（2024）最高法知民終157號

     ; （2024）最高法知民(min)終193號(hao)

      （2024）最高法(fa)知民終763號

      近日，最高人民法院知識產權法庭對三起涉及侵害植物新品種權糾紛上訴案作出終審判決。三案爭議均涉及五某公司于2015年獲得授權的玉米新(xin)品(pin)種(zhong)“WG646”，五某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)先后(hou)發現禾某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)于(yu)2022年(nian)在甘(gan)(gan)肅(su)省(sheng)臨澤縣(xian)的(de)兩個(ge)地塊，于(yu)2023年(nian)在甘(gan)(gan)肅(su)省(sheng)景泰(tai)縣(xian)的(de)一個(ge)地塊，分(fen)別使(shi)用授權(quan)品(pin)種(zhong)“WG646”作為(wei)親本非法(fa)生(sheng)產、繁殖玉米雜交(jiao)種(zhong)。其中(zhong)，禾某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)在臨澤縣(xian)兩個(ge)地塊系委托瞭(liao)某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)制(zhi)種(zhong)。五某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)針(zhen)(zhen)對臨澤縣(xian)兩個(ge)地塊的(de)被(bei)訴(su)侵權(quan)行為(wei)以禾某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)、瞭(liao)某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)為(wei)被(bei)告，向甘(gan)(gan)肅(su)省(sheng)蘭(lan)州(zhou)市中(zhong)級人(ren)民法(fa)院(yuan)（以下(xia)簡稱一審法(fa)院(yuan)）提起兩件(jian)訴(su)訟；針(zhen)(zhen)對景泰(tai)縣(xian)的(de)被(bei)訴(su)侵權(quan)行為(wei)以禾某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)(si)為(wei)被(bei)告向一審法(fa)院(yuan)提起訴(su)訟。

      三起(qi)案(an)(an)(an)件(jian)(jian)中，一(yi)審法院均根據(ju)五(wu)某(mou)公(gong)司(si)(si)申請(qing)(qing)，委(wei)托鑒定(ding)(ding)機構(gou)(gou)采(cai)用(yong)(yong)SSR標(biao)記法將(jiang)被(bei)訴(su)(su)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)親(qin)本(ben)與(yu)涉(she)案(an)(an)(an)授權(quan)(quan)品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)“WG646”進(jin)行真(zhen)(zhen)實(shi)性鑒定(ding)(ding)，檢測結(jie)果均為(wei)：比較(jiao)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點數(shu)40，差(cha)異(yi)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點數(shu)1，結(jie)論為(wei)近似；三案(an)(an)(an)均根據(ju)禾某(mou)公(gong)司(si)(si)申請(qing)(qing)，委(wei)托鑒定(ding)(ding)機構(gou)(gou)對(dui)被(bei)訴(su)(su)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)親(qin)本(ben)加測2個(ge)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點，發(fa)現在該2個(ge)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點上(shang)存在差(cha)異(yi)。在涉(she)及景泰縣(xian)地(di)塊的案(an)(an)(an)件(jian)(jian)中，禾某(mou)公(gong)司(si)(si)還申請(qing)(qing)將(jiang)被(bei)訴(su)(su)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)親(qin)本(ben)與(yu)案(an)(an)(an)外人于2023年5月獲得(de)授權(quan)(quan)的玉(yu)米新品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)“HJ8702”采(cai)用(yong)(yong)SSR標(biao)記法進(jin)行真(zhen)(zhen)實(shi)性鑒定(ding)(ding)，比較(jiao)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點數(shu)40，差(cha)異(yi)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點數(shu)0，結(jie)論為(wei)極(ji)近似或相同。一(yi)審法院據(ju)此認定(ding)(ding)三案(an)(an)(an)中被(bei)訴(su)(su)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)親(qin)本(ben)與(yu)授權(quan)(quan)品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)“WG646”均存在3個(ge)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點差(cha)異(yi)，不構(gou)(gou)成(cheng)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)；在涉(she)景泰縣(xian)地(di)塊的案(an)(an)(an)件(jian)(jian)中，一(yi)審法院還結(jie)合了“HJ8702”與(yu)“WG646”分(fen)別取得(de)植物(wu)新品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)(quan)的事(shi)實(shi)，以及被(bei)訴(su)(su)繁(fan)殖材料分(fen)別與(yu)“HJ8702”“WG646”進(jin)行檢測的結(jie)果，論證被(bei)訴(su)(su)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)親(qin)本(ben)與(yu)授權(quan)(quan)品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)“WG646”不同。一(yi)審判決后(hou)，五(wu)某(mou)公(gong)司(si)(si)就三案(an)(an)(an)提起(qi)上(shang)訴(su)(su)。

      關于三(san)案(an)中涉及的(de)(de)(de)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)問題，最(zui)高(gao)人(ren)民(min)法(fa)院此(ci)前(qian)在（2024）最(zui)高(gao)法(fa)知民(min)終337號案(an)已(yi)(yi)經指(zhi)出(chu)(chu)，采取擴(kuo)大檢測(ce)(ce)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)必須以(yi)待(dai)(dai)(dai)測(ce)(ce)樣(yang)(yang)品(pin)(pin)與(yu)(yu)對(dui)(dui)照樣(yang)(yang)品(pin)(pin)的(de)(de)(de)差異(yi)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)小于但接(jie)近(jin)臨界值為(wei)前(qian)提，以(yi)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)具有(you)足(zu)夠的(de)(de)(de)遺傳多(duo)態性(xing)(xing)、穩定(ding)(ding)(ding)性(xing)(xing)，關聯基因(yin)與(yu)(yu)表(biao)型(xing)之間存(cun)在強相(xiang)(xiang)關性(xing)(xing)，且這種關聯的(de)(de)(de)可(ke)靠性(xing)(xing)已(yi)(yi)得到科學上(shang)(shang)的(de)(de)(de)充分評估(gu)和驗證(zheng)(zheng)，并已(yi)(yi)開發(fa)出(chu)(chu)與(yu)(yu)性(xing)(xing)狀(zhuang)緊密連鎖(suo)的(de)(de)(de)功能(neng)(neng)標記為(wei)條件(jian)。在前(qian)述判決的(de)(de)(de)基礎上(shang)(shang)，最(zui)高(gao)人(ren)民(min)法(fa)院在該三(san)案(an)中進一步指(zhi)出(chu)(chu)，申(shen)請(qing)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)的(de)(de)(de)特定(ding)(ding)(ding)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)是否屬(shu)于待(dai)(dai)(dai)測(ce)(ce)樣(yang)(yang)品(pin)(pin)對(dui)(dui)應品(pin)(pin)種的(de)(de)(de)特定(ding)(ding)(ding)標記，存(cun)在特定(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)關聯性(xing)(xing)狀(zhuang)，從而可(ke)以(yi)用于將(jiang)待(dai)(dai)(dai)測(ce)(ce)樣(yang)(yang)品(pin)(pin)與(yu)(yu)其(qi)他品(pin)(pin)種區分開來，應由提出(chu)(chu)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)申(shen)請(qing)的(de)(de)(de)被(bei)訴侵權(quan)(quan)人(ren)承擔舉(ju)證(zheng)(zheng)責任。禾某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司對(dui)(dui)于其(qi)選(xuan)取的(de)(de)(de)2個(ge)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)明確(que)表(biao)示無法(fa)確(que)定(ding)(ding)(ding)與(yu)(yu)特定(ding)(ding)(ding)性(xing)(xing)狀(zhuang)之間的(de)(de)(de)對(dui)(dui)應關系，其(qi)所(suo)稱由公(gong)(gong)司專業(ye)人(ren)員根(gen)據(ju)(ju)育種的(de)(de)(de)思路和血緣(yuan)關系得出(chu)(chu)在這2個(ge)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)上(shang)(shang)應當能(neng)(neng)檢測(ce)(ce)出(chu)(chu)差異(yi)，也缺少(shao)證(zheng)(zheng)據(ju)(ju)支持(chi)。因(yin)此(ci)，禾某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司作為(wei)提出(chu)(chu)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)申(shen)請(qing)的(de)(de)(de)一方當事人(ren)，并未(wei)對(dui)(dui)該2個(ge)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)為(wei)待(dai)(dai)(dai)測(ce)(ce)樣(yang)(yang)品(pin)(pin)對(dui)(dui)應品(pin)(pin)種的(de)(de)(de)特定(ding)(ding)(ding)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)完成舉(ju)證(zheng)(zheng)責任，未(wei)能(neng)(neng)證(zheng)(zheng)明該2個(ge)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)可(ke)以(yi)用于區分待(dai)(dai)(dai)測(ce)(ce)樣(yang)(yang)品(pin)(pin)和其(qi)他玉米品(pin)(pin)種。因(yin)此(ci)，三(san)案(an)中涉及位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)加(jia)測(ce)(ce)的(de)(de)(de)測(ce)(ce)試報告對(dui)(dui)于證(zheng)(zheng)明被(bei)訴侵權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)種與(yu)(yu)“WG646”不具有(you)同一性(xing)(xing)并無證(zheng)(zheng)明力。在被(bei)訴侵權(quan)(quan)親本繁殖材料(liao)與(yu)(yu)授權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)種經鑒定(ding)(ding)(ding)存(cun)在1個(ge)差異(yi)位(wei)(wei)(wei)點(dian)(dian)(dian)，且被(bei)訴侵權(quan)(quan)人(ren)未(wei)能(neng)(neng)舉(ju)出(chu)(chu)相(xiang)(xiang)反證(zheng)(zheng)據(ju)(ju)的(de)(de)(de)情(qing)況下，應認定(ding)(ding)(ding)三(san)案(an)中重復使用授權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)種“WG646”作為(wei)親本生(sheng)產被(bei)訴侵權(quan)(quan)雜交種的(de)(de)(de)行為(wei)構(gou)成侵權(quan)(quan)。

      在(zai)涉及(ji)景泰縣地(di)塊的(de)(de)案(an)(an)件(jian)中(zhong)，最高人民法院(yuan)還指出(chu)，品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)(quan)人初(chu)步證(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)明被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)與授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)特征(zheng)、特性實質(zhi)相同，被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)人主張其(qi)(qi)(qi)不(bu)構成侵(qin)(qin)(qin)害涉案(an)(an)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)(quan)的(de)(de)，應(ying)當提交(jiao)反駁證(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)據，證(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)明被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)與授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)特征(zheng)、特性不(bu)同；至(zhi)于被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)是(shi)否(fou)為(wei)(wei)(wei)其(qi)(qi)(qi)他授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)，原(yuan)則上與本案(an)(an)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)判(pan)定(ding)并無直接關(guan)聯性。以(yi)(yi)被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)屬于在(zai)后其(qi)(qi)(qi)他授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)為(wei)(wei)(wei)由主張不(bu)構成侵(qin)(qin)(qin)害在(zai)先品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)(quan)的(de)(de)，不(bu)應(ying)予(yu)以(yi)(yi)支持。該(gai)案(an)(an)中(zhong)，判(pan)斷禾某公司在(zai)該(gai)案(an)(an)的(de)(de)制種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)行為(wei)(wei)(wei)是(shi)否(fou)構成侵(qin)(qin)(qin)害“WG646”品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)(quan)，一般(ban)不(bu)需要將被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)是(shi)否(fou)為(wei)(wei)(wei)“HJ8702”作(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)待證(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)事實進行審查。“WG646”品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)時間早于“HJ8702”品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)近(jin)9年。即便禾某公司提交(jiao)的(de)(de)證(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)據能夠(gou)證(zheng)(zheng)(zheng)明被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)為(wei)(wei)(wei)“HJ8702”，亦不(bu)足(zu)以(yi)(yi)否(fou)定(ding)被訴(su)侵(qin)(qin)(qin)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)與授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)“WG646”的(de)(de)特征(zheng)、特性實質(zhi)相同，亦不(bu)足(zu)以(yi)(yi)排除(chu)其(qi)(qi)(qi)同時系(xi)在(zai)先授(shou)(shou)權(quan)(quan)的(de)(de)“WG646”。

      據此，最高人民法院在三案中均改判認定被訴侵權人的行為構成侵害五某公司“WG646”植物新品種權。考慮種植面積、當地平均畝產量、侵權種子的價格和合(he)理利潤、貢獻(xian)率等因素，在三案中分(fen)別支持(chi)100萬(wan)元(yuan)、150萬(wan)元(yuan)和100萬(wan)元(yuan)賠償(chang)(chang)請(qing)求，其(qi)(qi)中兩案全額支持(chi)五某公司賠償(chang)(chang)請(qing)求，并支持(chi)其(qi)(qi)維權合(he)理開支。

      該三案(an)進一(yi)步明確了植物新(xin)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)權(quan)(quan)(quan)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)案(an)件(jian)中被(bei)(bei)(bei)訴(su)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)與授權(quan)(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)同一(yi)性(xing)認定的(de)(de)具體規則，包括(kuo)證(zheng)明責(ze)任的(de)(de)分配(pei)規則和位點加(jia)測規則，明確傳達出(chu)擴(kuo)大位點加(jia)測必(bi)須符合嚴格的(de)(de)限定條件(jian)，不應(ying)輕易適用擴(kuo)大位點加(jia)測的(de)(de)司法導向。特別是(shi)(shi)，判決(jue)指出(chu)在品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)權(quan)(quan)(quan)人初(chu)步證(zheng)明被(bei)(bei)(bei)訴(su)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)與授權(quan)(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)特征(zheng)、特性(xing)實(shi)質相(xiang)同的(de)(de)情況(kuang)下，被(bei)(bei)(bei)訴(su)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)人原則上不能以被(bei)(bei)(bei)訴(su)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)是(shi)(shi)其(qi)他授權(quan)(quan)(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)為(wei)由來主張其(qi)不構成(cheng)侵(qin)害(hai)在先(xian)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)權(quan)(quan)(quan)。這一(yi)規則的(de)(de)明確，使得被(bei)(bei)(bei)訴(su)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)人試圖以其(qi)他品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)魚(yu)目混(hun)珠(zhu)的(de)(de)方式(shi)逃避(bi)侵(qin)權(quan)(quan)(quan)責(ze)任的(de)(de)企圖落空，也為(wei)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)權(quan)(quan)(quan)人更好維護自身合法權(quan)(quan)(quan)益提供了制度保障。

掃描下(xia)方二維碼(ma) 查看(kan)裁(cai)判文書

（2024）最高法知民終157號

（2024）最高法知民終193號

（2024）最高法知民終763號