IP Protections for Novel Cannabis Plant Varieties: Which Options Are Right for You?
Companies operating within the agriculture and horticulture space have had multiple options available to them for protecting novel plant varieties for several decades. The same is now true for companies operating within the cannabis industry, with some caveats.
January 25, 2022 at 12:55 PM
8 minute read
![Travis Bliss of Panitch Schwarze. Courtesy photo](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/01/Travis-Bliss-767x633.jpg)
For nearly a century, the United States has offered some form of intellectual property (IP) protection for novel plant varieties. Companies operating within the agriculture and horticulture space have had multiple options available to them for protecting novel plant varieties for several decades. The same is now true for companies operating within the cannabis industry, with some caveats.
Though federal illegality has created some limits on IP options for novel cannabis varieties, patent protection has always been an option in one form or another. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, commonly referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill, made two key changes to federal cannabis and IP law that opened further options for cannabis breeders, as well. See Public Law 115-334, at Sects. 10113 and at Sect. 10108 (Dec. 20, 2018). Thus, under current U.S. law, there are three primary options that cannabis breeders can use to secure protection for their novel varieties. Which options are available and useful depends on several factors.
- Primary considerations when selecting IP protection for cannabis varieties
Though there are countless factors that should be considered when deciding which types of IP rights should be obtained to protect a new cannabis variety, there are two factors that are of primary concern: whether the new cannabis variety is marijuana (i.e., high-THC) or hemp (i.e., low-THC), and whether the new cannabis variety will be reproduced asexually/clonally or sexually/seed.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All![Reshaping IP Policy Under the Second Trump Administration Reshaping IP Policy Under the Second Trump Administration](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/09/40/626aea664ad4a5d63c0f8f8d74f2/julianna-hunt-767x633.jpg)
![Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/9a/da/617cb4a34572855dd2a37efe2b77/larry-ashery-767x633.jpg)
Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits
3 minute read!['Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge 'Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/405/2024/09/Ballard-Spahr-Sign-767x633-2.jpg)
'Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge
6 minute read![Buchanan Ingersoll Launches in Chicago With Locke Lord IP Team Buchanan Ingersoll Launches in Chicago With Locke Lord IP Team](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/67/13/96a042da47ea80888b7c183d25ec/gaertner-newell-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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