The Supreme Court ruled that if a new variety of fruit is registered for variety protection within one year of being sold on the market, the rights to that variety will be recognized. Variety protection application is a patent system in the field of plants. This ruling marks the first time the Supreme Court has clarified when to file for variety protection to have those rights recognized.
According to the legal community on the 17th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Chief Justice Oh Seok-jun) dismissed an appeal in a lawsuit filed by individual A requesting the cancellation of variety protection registration for blueberry by company B, confirming the lower patent court's ruling in favor of individual A.
B received a variety protection application decision for a self-developed blueberry variety (highbush) from the National Institute of Seeds on December 9, 2019. However, individual A claimed that B's highbush was sold on the internet around March 2018, arguing that the variety protection registration should be invalidated. In 2022, individual A requested a registration invalidation trial to the Variety Protection Trial Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The Variety Protection Trial Committee acts as the first instance concerning variety protection applications.
According to the Plant Variety Protection Act, for fruit trees, if a variety protection application is made within one year from the date of first transfer of its seeds or crops in the country, novelty is not denied. Novelty means that it has not been commercialized. This allows breeders time to observe market reactions before deciding whether to register for variety protection.
Following the first ruling by the Variety Protection Trial Committee, the patent court also ruled in favor of individual A. The patent court's panel stated, 'B did not transfer highbush for utilization purposes for one year prior to receiving the decision on the highbush variety protection application, so novelty is recognized.'
The Supreme Court found no issues with the outcome of the patent court ruling, but determined there was a misunderstanding of legal principles. Even if transferred for utilization purposes within the year before the variety protection application, those rights are recognized. Since B filed for variety protection on December 9, 2019, selling in the market within the prior year, specifically from December 9, 2018, to December 9, 2019, does not invalidate the variety protection application.
However, the patent court panel ruled that the sales date of the highbush claimed by individual A was around March 2018, and since there had been no sales in the one year prior to the variety protection application date, novelty is recognized. The Supreme Court stated that this ruling was made on a premise that contradicts existing legal principles. Nonetheless, it noted that despite the misunderstanding of legal principles, the decision not to invalidate B's highbush variety protection application is justified.