The Court of Appeal of Milan, in the remittal proceedings ordered by the Court of Cassation (judgment No. 9429/2024), by partial judgment No. 451/2026 of 23 January 2026, set aside the arbitral award of 7 January 2019 for being contrary to public policy pursuant to Article 829(3) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, in the context of a dispute concerning the exploitation of the plant variety Sugranineteen. The decision gives effect to the principle of law established by the Supreme Court, according to which, in the field of Community plant variety rights, a clause is null and void where it grants the right holder the power to control the distribution of fruits obtained from authorized material, where such fruits are not usable as propagating material, in breach of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94. Applying that principle, the Court declared null and void the contractual clauses reserving ownership of the plants to the breeder and requiring that the fruits be marketed through authorized distributors, holding them to be incompatible with the principle of exhaustion and with the distinction between propagating material and harvested product. The proceedings will continue for the determination of the pecuniary consequences arising from the unlawful termination of the agreement. The judgment is situated within an evolving international context, marked by both regulatory developments (within UPOV) and case law developments, particularly in the United Kingdom, concerning the enforcement of plant variety rights along the commercial chain.