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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
First Cannabis Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
