In Depth: China’s Kiwi War Pits a Patent Against a Plant’s Pedigree

The conflict between New Zealand-based Zespri Group Ltd., the world’s largest kiwi marketer, and Chinese grower Hubei Taoli Piaoxiang Ecological Orchard Co. Ltd., began in 2021 with an undercover operation resembling corporate espionage. Zespri agents, along with notaries, visited the Taoli Piaoxiang orchard in central China to buy kiwifruit, tour the site, and collect leaf and fruit samples for genetic testing. These samples formed the foundation for a major legal case after laboratory analysis revealed the fruit was genetically identical or nearly identical to Zespri’s proprietary variety, SunGold G3 (ZESY002) [para. 1][para. 2].

Zespri filed a lawsuit in a Nanjing court in June 2023, demanding that Taoli Piaoxiang destroy its infringing vines and pay 5 million yuan (about $710,130) in damages. Zespri’s patent for G3 had been granted in China in 2016, and it accused the Chinese grower of illegally cultivating and selling its fruit through platforms such as Douyin (TikTok). What initially appeared to be a basic intellectual property dispute soon spiraled into a complex international controversy, with Taoli Piaoxiang counterclaiming that Zespri’s G3 variety originated from Chinese genetic material, allegedly obtained without proper consent [para. 3][para. 4].

Zespri’s Chinese success story is impressive: Sales soared from NZ$500 million (about $291.3 million) in 2018 to over NZ$1.1 billion in 2024, making China Zespri’s largest single market, largely thanks to SunGold G3. However, unauthorized G3 kiwifruit plantings in China have increased more than threefold since 2019, reaching over 18,700 acres, with illicit Chinese SunGold even being exported abroad [para. 5][para. 6].

Taoli Piaoxiang, founded in 2018 by businessman Li Xiaoming, was chosen by Zespri for an example-setting lawsuit. Li claimed to have invested nearly 80 million yuan, including government subsidies, into the business [para. 7]. The dispute moved to Wuhan court after initial jurisdictional skirmishes, focusing on two main points: First, Taoli Piaoxiang alleged Zespri had acquired the parent plants Jinfeng and Kuimi (native to China) without official approval, violating biological sovereignty and the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. Second, it contested whether Zespri had met technical requirements when securing its patent [para. 8][para. 9][para. 10][para. 11].

In October 2025, the Wuhan court ruled decisively for Zespri, ordering the destruction of the infringing vines and full payment of damages, with Taoli Piaoxiang appealing. Central to the Chinese grower’s defense were breeders of Jinfeng and Kuimi, who insisted Zespri received no authorized access to their plants in the 1980s. After failed attempts to contact Zespri for clarification, the breeders submitted a formal complaint to China’s Ministry of Agriculture [para. 12][para. 13][para. 14][para. 15][para. 16].

Taoli Piaoxiang formally petitioned the ministry to revoke Zespri’s G3 patent in October 2024, arguing its grant violated China’s sovereignty and public interest, while Zespri countered that its use of the genetic material was exempt for research purposes and that their collaboration with Chinese institutions was well-established. The regulatory process is ongoing [para. 17][para. 18][para. 19].

Meanwhile, unauthorized G3 cultivation thrives in Sichuan, bolstered by higher market prices and growing exports. Zespri’s earlier attempt to license Sichuan growers was rejected by its New Zealand shareholders, pushing the company to expand in Europe instead [para. 20][para. 21][para. 22].

Experts blame legal uncertainty, as China’s 2016 signing of the Nagoya Protocol has not been matched by comprehensive domestic law. Draft regulations from 2017 remain unimplemented, leaving patent and benefit-sharing rules unclear and dampening international collaboration. Until these gaps are resolved, similar disputes are expected to occur [para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26].