A Transient Abstract of Patent Proceedings Involving Hashish Patents


So far, there have been comparatively few patent proceedings referring to hashish patents and no courtroom has issued a discovering of infringement. With the curiosity in potential utility of hashish to develop remedies for quite a lot of medical circumstances and the continued issuance of hashish patents, the variety of hashish patent proceedings is more likely to improve as nicely. 4 cannabis-related patent proceedings are outlined briefly on this submit.

United Hashish Company v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01922 (D. Colo.)

In July of 2018, United Hashish Company (“UCANN”) filed an infringement motion in opposition to Pure Hemp Collective (“Pure Hemp”) in the USA District Court docket District of Colorado. UCANN alleged that Pure Hemp bought a number of hashish merchandise that infringed UCANN’s U.S. Patent[1], which claims varied liquid formulations of enriched extracts of plant cannabinoids. Pure Hemp filed an early movement for partial abstract judgment in search of to invalidate the claims of the patent as directed to ineligible material below 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court docket utilized the two-part Alice check and denied the movement, discovering no indication that the exact concentrations of cannabinoids and associated chemical compounds kind in nature in liquid kind. Thus, the courtroom discovered the claims weren’t directed to an unpatentable regulation of nature, a pure phenomenon, or an summary concept. The case was finally dismissed with prejudice earlier than validity of the patent was decided on the deserves.

Cover Development Company v. GW Pharma Restricted and GW Analysis Restricted, Case No. 6:20-cv-01180 (W.D. Tex.)

In December 2020, Cover Development Company (“Cover”) filed a criticism for patent infringement in opposition to GW Prescribed drugs PLC (“GW”) in the USA District Court docket for the Western District of Texas. Cover alleged that GW’s anti-epileptic CBD therapeutic, Epidiolex, infringed Cover’s U.S. Patent[2] which pertains to a strategy of extracting CBD utilizing carbon dioxide. The events’ disputed the proper building of the time period “CO2 in liquified kind below subcritical strain and temperature circumstances” within the asserted claims of the patent. After the Court docket issued its Declare Development Order, discovering that the plain language of the claims supported the defendants’ proposed declare building, the events agreed that Cover couldn’t prevail, and the events stipulated that Cover couldn’t prevail, and the Court docket entered a remaining judgment of non-infringement in favor of GW.

Insys Growth Firm, Inc. v. GW Pharma Restricted Co., Case No. IPR2017-00503

In December of 2016, Insys Growth Firm, Inc. (“Insys”) petitioned for IPR in search of cancellation of a U.S. Patent[3] assigned to GW Pharma Restricted (“GW”) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Restricted (“Otsuka”). The patent is directed to strategies of treating seizures utilizing CBD. Insys argued that each one claims of the patent had been unpatentable as apparent over the prior artwork as a result of the usage of CBD to deal with seizures was well-known previous to the invention. GW and Otsuka countered that treating seizures with CBD was, at finest, a promising candidate for additional research and an individual of abnormal talent had no expectation that CBD would deal with seizures. In its remaining written choice, the Board struck down claims 1 and a pair of as apparent however upheld the remaining 11 dependent claims as a result of Insys did not establish the place any of the declare limitations had been disclosed within the prior artwork. The PTAB’s choice signifies that the PTAB doesn’t intend to deal with patents associated to hashish in another way than different patents primarily based on the subject material alone.

The Authentic Resinator, LLC v. TTT Improvements LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-02002

In November of 2021, The Authentic Resinator (“TOR”) filed a criticism for each patent and trademark infringement in opposition to TTT Improvements (“TTT”) in the USA District Court docket for the Central District of California. TOR alleges that TTT is promoting sure merchandise which infringe two of TOR’s U.S. patents[4]. The patents are associated to strategies of extracting resin and trichomes from crops comparable to hashish. This case is scheduled to go to trial on the finish of 2022 and will transform the primary time a jury thought-about a case of infringement of a hashish patent.

[4] U.S. Patent Nos. 10,507,233 and 10,512,938.


Supply hyperlink