Commentary on Judgment No. 9429 of 2024: Public Order and Community Plant Variety Rights

Judgment No. 9429 of April 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents a significant step forward in the protection of intellectual property rights, particularly in the field of community plant variety rights. In this decision, the Court declared a contractual clause null and void for violating the principles of public order established by Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94, emphasizing the importance of adhering to European regulations concerning the distribution of fruits obtained from protected varieties.

Context of the Judgment

The case at hand involves the holder of plant variety rights, M. (C.F.S.), and the opposing party, S. (T.E.), in the context of an appeal against an arbitral award. The Court examined the validity of an arbitration clause that granted the rights holder the power to determine who would be authorized to distribute the fruits produced from patented crops. The Court found this clause to be contrary to public order, as it contravened Articles 13, points 2 and 3, of the European Regulation, which guarantees free access to genetic resources.

Principles of Public Order and Case Law

Public Order - Contrary to - Reasons. 050001 COMPETITION (CIVIL LAW) - IN GENERAL Generally. In the matter of community plant variety rights, a contractual clause is null and void, for being contrary to public order, given the violation of Article 13, points 2 and 3, of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. This clause attributes to the holder of intellectual property rights over patented crops the power to identify the subjects who will exclusively be entitled to distribute the fruits obtained by the producer previously authorized to use the varietal constituents of the protected variety from which those fruits were produced, where the latter are unusable as multiplication material.

The Court therefore underscored the importance of interpreting contractual clauses in a manner consistent with European principles, highlighting that freedom of distribution of fruits must be guaranteed, preventing the rights holder from abusing their power to restrict competition. This aspect is crucial in a context where innovation and research in the agricultural sector must be promoted, not hindered.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 9429 of 2024 serves as a clear warning to intellectual property rights holders: contractual clauses must comply not only with national regulations but also with European ones, particularly the principles of public order. The decision of the Court of Cassation, therefore, not only protects the rights of producers but also fosters an environment of fair competition, essential for the development of the agricultural sector and the sustainability of plant resources. It is crucial for legal professionals and companies to understand the importance of complying with such regulations to avoid contractual nullities that could jeopardize their interests.