Pending Case, Cannabis Companies May Be Able to Prosecute Patent Infringements in Court
In "United Cannabis v. Pure Hemp Collective," United Cannabis claims that Pure Hemp used a cannabis extract that United Cannabis had a patent on. Lawyers say this case is the first of its kind.
May 21, 2019 at 05:46 PM
3 minute read
Getting a patent for a cannabis product is no more difficult than getting a patent for any other kind of product. However, with a high number of cannabis patent applications being approved, it is likely that many will be challenged for invalidation in the coming years.
Already one of these patents has gone to court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In United Cannabis v. Pure Hemp Collective, United Cannabis Corp. claims that Pure Hemp Collective Inc. used a cannabis extract that United Cannabis had a patent on. Pure Hemp filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing United Cannabis should not have had a patent on the extract because it was something that occurred naturally. In April, U.S. District Judge William Martinez found the strain was altered and would not have occurred naturally and denied the motion for partial summary judgment. The case is still pending.
Daniel Pereira, a partner at Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt in Alexandria, Virginia, said the United Cannabis case is the first of its kind.
Pereira said the rules for getting a patent on a cannabis product are the same as those for any other kind of product.
“If you took the plant and made an extract and have a bucket of extract that you're trying to sell, that probably won't be patent eligible,” Pereira said. “In this case, United took the extract and purified it, which was not naturally occurring.”
If United Cannabis prevails in the case, Pereira said he would expect there to be several new patents for cannabis products filed and would also expect similar court cases to be filed. That would then create precedent of a federal judge enforcing a patent for a product that is illegal at the federal level.
“If you're not getting the patent and someone else does, you can be stopped at some point in your product line,” Pereira said.
Vincent Capuano, a partner at Duane Morris in Boston, said there is no restriction on getting a federal patent on a cannabis product and now everyone who is in the cannabis industry should be considering getting a federal patent on their products.
“There is a very robust and active situation with patents,” Capuano said. “It is a land grab for territory.”
However, there is no specific precedent for patent examiners to go by when considering approving or denying a cannabis patent application, Capuano said. He explained many of the patents being approved are being done so by junior examiners and those that may not be up to muster but still get approved may be invalidated in the coming years.
“Some patents are skating by,” Capuano said.
Education is key for those who want to apply for a cannabis patent. The first thing to understand, Capuano said, is it is not illegal to patent a cannabis product even though it is illegal for a company to trademark a cannabis product. He said in-house counsel and those who seek a patent on a cannabis-related product should also pay attention to all of the patents that are approved so they are not accidentally copying something that already has a patent.
“It's something I think a lot of cannabis companies think about but don't really pay attention to,” Capuano said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Meta Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Pirated Books to Train AI Models
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250