First-Ever Cannabis Patent Infringement Lawsuit Was Recently Filed
Protecting intellectual property can be challenging for cannabis businesses. While patent law is one area where protection is available, the first patent infringement lawsuit involving cannabis was just recently filed.
Despite state-level legalization, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to refuse federal trademark registration of medical marijuana and other cannabis-related trademarks. In addition to citing the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the USPTO also cites 37 C.F.R. § 2.69, which states that “[w]hen the sale or transportation of any product for which registration is sought is regulated under an Act of Congress, the Patent and Trademark Office may make appropriate inquiry as to compliance with such Act for the sole purpose of determining lawfulness of the commerce recited in the application.”
Cannabis companies have had far better success obtaining patent protection. According to a study conducted by Innography in 2017, there were a total of 66 U.S. patent grants and 62 U.S. patent applications related to medical marijuana. The U.S. government even holds a patent (No. 6,630,507) for the potential use of cannabinoids to protect the brain from damage or degeneration caused by certain medical conditions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recently approved Epidiolex, the first approved cannabis-based drug.
United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc.
Late last month, the United Cannabis Corporation of Denver, Colorado (“UCANN”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Colorado against Pure Hemp Collective Inc. of Conifer (“Pure Hemp”). UCANN alleges that the rival cannabis company copied its cannabinoid medical product formula. The patent at issue is U.S.P. 9,730,911, which protects “liquid cannabinoid formulation, wherein at least 95 percent of the total cannabinoids is cannabidiol (CBD).”
According to the suit, UCANN discovered the infringement after conducting lab tests on a purchased bottle of Pure Hemp’s Vina Bell tincture. According to the suit:
The analysis revealed that the product contains a cannabinoid formulation that directly infringes one or more claims of the ’911 Patent, including exemplary claim 10: “A liquid cannabinoid formulation, wherein at least 95% of the total cannabinoids is cannabidiol (CBD).” Specifically, the Vina Bell 5000mg product contains a cannabinoid formulation wherein at least 95% of the total cannabinoids is CBD. Pure Hemp sells other cannabis products with similar cannabinoid compositions that infringe other claims of the ’911 patent.
UCANN’s suit seeks a permanent injunction against Pure Hemp, along with compensatory damages. The company is also seeking treble damages for Pure Hemp’s alleged “willful” infringement, as evidenced by its decision to continue selling the patented formulations after receiving a cease and desist letter in May of this year.
As the first “test case,” United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc. has the potential to set the standard for how federal courts handle cannabis-related infringement suits. If successful, the case could also spur additional patent infringement litigation in the industry. Of course, given the fact that cannabis remains illegal under federal law, there is always the possibility that the court could dismiss the case.
If you have any questions, if you are interested in exploring these options or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Jason A. LaBerteaux, at 201-806-3364.
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
