Tag Archives: application

Who’s Afraid of Biotech Institute LLC?

By Brett Schuman, Daniel Mello, Nicholas Costanza, Olivia Uitto
No Comments

While cannabis patenting activity is still in its infancy, relatively speaking, a lot has been written already about the cannabis patenting activity of an entity called Biotech Institute LLC (BI) of Westlake Village, California.1 BI is building a sizable portfolio of utility and plant patents covering various aspects of the cannabis plant. According to some commentators, BI’s patents have “many in the cannabis industry concerned.”2

But how concerned should members of the cannabis industry really be about BI’s patents? Generally, patents are susceptible to numerous challenges in multiple fora. From 2012-2016, approximately 80% of challenged patents were invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) each year.3 The PTAB was created in 2011 by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 6, to create a process for eliminating improvidently issued patents. And the statistics suggest that the process may be working as intended by Congress.

BI may be building its portfolio by taking advantage of some unique challenges in the cannabis patenting area. First, even though cannabis has been cultivated and consumed by humans for thousands of years, there is a relative lack of published prior art available to patentees and patent examiners examining patent applications.4 Second, patent examiners are not as familiar with cannabis patent applications as they may be with other types of patent applications.

So, we examined carefully BI’s earliest and arguably broadest utility patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,095,554, and concluded that maybe the cannabis industry need not be so concerned about this and some of BI’s other utility patents. Although the ’554 patent is lengthy – 247 columns of text and over an inch thick when printed in hardcopy – there appears to be little if any novelty to the claimed invention. Alternatively, the patent appears to be obvious in light of the available prior art.

In a patent, the claims define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s intellectual property. Claim 1 of the ’554 patent recites:

  1. A hybrid cannabis plant, or an asexual clone of said hybrid cannabis plant, or a plant part, tissue, or cell thereof, which produces a female inflorescence, said inflorescence comprising:
  1. a BT/BD genotype;
  2. a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene;
  3. a terpene oil content greater than about 1.0% by weight; and
  4. a CBD content greater than 3%;
  5. wherein the terpene profile is defined as terpinolene, alpha phelladrene, beta ocimene, careen, limonene, gamma terpinene, alpha pinene, alpha terpinene, beta pinene, fenchol, camphene, alpha terpineol, alpha humulene, beta caryophyllene, linalool, cary oxide, and myrcene, and wherein the terpene oil content is determined by the additive content of the terpenes in the terpene profile; and wherein the terpene contents and CBD content are measured by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and calculated based on dry weight of the inflorescence; wherein a representative sample of seed producing said plants has been deposited under NCIMB Nos. 42246, 42247, 42248, 42249, 42250, and 42254.

While claim elements define the metes and bounds of the invention, typically only certain claim elements are intended to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Other claim elements merely help to describe the invention. For example, the preamble in the ‘554 patent, or the part of the claim before subpart (a), describes the flowering part of the cannabis plant. This is not intended to describe anything novel about the claimed invention, but rather it simply describes the part of the cannabis plant that is relevant to the invention.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

Before the priority date of the ’554 patent, it was known in the prior art that BT/Bgenotypes produce nearly equal amounts of THC and CBD (both are dominant; one is not recessive).5 Thus, it is not unexpected to have a CBD content greater than 3% in a genotype that can produce large amounts of CBD (known references state as high as 21% in CBD-dominant strains and 3%-15% in BT/Bgenotypes).6 Further, it was known in the prior art that terpenes generally constitute more than 1.0% percent by weight (usually between 2-4%) of the flower.7

As these databases continue to grow and studies of cannabis are publicly disclosed, cannabis patents like BI’s ’554 patent will become more and more susceptible to patent challenges and invalidation.Claim element (b), reciting a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene, appears to be one of – if not the only – claimed element of novelty of the BI invention. Terpenes are aromatic compounds produced in plants, and the cannabis plant has more than 100 different terpenes. Claim element (e) simply lists the most abundant terpenes in the cannabis plant. A majority of cannabis strains express high levels of myrcene; however, there are known prior art strains that express high levels of other terpenes, such as caryophyllene, limonene, pinene, etc. Additionally, it is well known in the art that terpenes have different therapeutic effects. For example, pinene and linalool are known to have antidepressant activity.8 Thus, a prior disclosure of a BT/Bgenotype that has a terpene profile where myrcene is not the dominate terpene very likely invalidates this claim. And even assuming there is any novelty to a high-CBD strain where myrcene is not the dominant terpene, there is a motivation to breed for a dominant terpene besides myrcene.

Because cannabis has been and remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, previously known and used strains generally have not been chemically characterized, studied, researched, and the subject of publications that can be used as prior art for purposes of challenging cannabis patents. But that is changing. For example, the Open Cannabis Project (OCP) attempted to characterize and publish chemical details of cannabis plants. Even though OCP closed as of May 31, 2019, is database is still publicly available. Another example is CANNA, a non-profit initiative of the CANNA Espana Fertilizantes SL company, which carries out studies and conducts research on cannabis and its active compounds.9 In one study,10 CANNA found that some strains have terpene profiles where myrcene is not the dominant terpene, which could be relevant to a novelty-based or obviousness challenge to claim 1 of the ‘554 patent. As these databases continue to grow and studies of cannabis are publicly disclosed, cannabis patents like BI’s ’554 patent will become more and more susceptible to patent challenges and invalidation.


References

  1. See, e.g.,Amanda Chicago Lewis, The Great Pot Monopoly Mystery, GQ (August 23, 2017), https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-pot-monopoly-mystery;  Brian Wroblewski, Utility Patents on Marijuana? Who is BioTech Institute LLC?, The National Marijuana News, https://thenationalmarijuananews.com/utility-patents-marijuana-biotech-institute-llc/; Eric Sandy, Biotech Institute Has Applied for Patents on 8 Individual Cannabis Cultivars, Cannabis Business Times(June 24, 2019), https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/biotech-institute-cannabis-patent-applications/.
  2. Nicole Grimm, George Lyons III, and Brett Scott, Biotech Institute’s Growing Patent Portfolio — U.S. Patent No. 9,095,554 and the Path Forward, JD Supra (November 17, 2017), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/biotech-institute-s-growing-patent-17433/.
  3. World Intellectual Property Organization, An overview of patent litigation systems across jurisdictions,World Intellectual Property Indicators 2018, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2018-chapter1.pdf.
  4. Brett Schuman et al., Emerging Patent Issues In The Cannabis Industry, Law360(February 20, 2018), https://www.goodwinlaw.com/-/media/files/publications/emerging-patent-issues-in-the-cannabis-industry.pdf.
  5. Chandra, et al. Cannabis sativa L. – Botany and Biotechnology, pages 142-144, Springer, 2017 (citing de Meijer, Genetics163: 225-346 (2003)). See alsoMolecular Breeding (2006) 17:257-268, doi/10.1007/s11032-005-5681-x. 
  6. American Journal of Botany 91(6): 966:975 (2004). doi.org/10.3732/ajb.91.6.966; See e.g., Jikomes, Peak THC: The Limits on THC and CBD Levels for Cannabis Strainshttps://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/peak-thc-cbd-levels-for-cannabis-strains.
  7. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3): e0173911. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173911.  See also, Fischedick J. T., Hazekamp A., Erkelens T., Choi Y. H., Verpoorte R. (2010). Phytochemistry712058–2073 (2010). 10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.10.001
  8. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Sep 28;143(2):673-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2012.07.026. Epub 2012 Jul 31.
  9. Retrieved from https://www.fundacion-canna.es/en/about-us, on August 6, 2019.
  10. Retrieved from https://www.fundacion-canna.es/en/variations-terpene-profiles-different-strains-cannabis-sativa-l, on August 6, 2019.

The Illinois Hemp Industry Is About To Explode

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Within two days of announcing the opening of license applications for growing hemp, the Illinois Department of Agriculture received roughly 350 applications. According to the Lincoln Courier, that number has since grown to 575 applications in the past couple weeks. The Illinois Department of Agriculture has already issued 341 licenses for growing and 79 for processing, as of last Friday.

According to Jeff Cox, Chief of the Bureau of Medicinal Plants at the Illinois Department of Agriculture, a lot of this excitement comes from farmers wanting to branch out from the state’s traditional crops, such as corn and soybeans. “Corn and soybean prices have not been the best over the past few years, and so I think they see this as an opportunity to have a different source of income on their farm,” Cox told the Lincoln Courier.

Morgan Booth, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Agriculture told the Chicago Tribune that they were expecting this kind of enthusiasm among farmers. “We knew there was a lot of interest in it,” says Booth. “We were very pleasantly surprised.”

Back in late December of 2018, after the Farm Bill was signed into law, the Illinois Department of Agriculture was quick to jump on the hemp train. They announced their intentions to submit plans for a program to the federal Department of Agriculture, opened a 90-day public comment period, and finalized the rules in April. The state’s regulators hoped to expedite the process and have farmers growing hemp by June 1, which appears to be successful. Dozens of hemp farmers throughout the state are anticipating their first crops will be in the soil by the end of the month.

US Patent & Trademark Office Issues Guidance for Trademarking CBD Products

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published an Examination Guide to provide further clarity for how they assess the legitimacy of trademarks for cannabis products. For the uninitiated, the 2018 Farm Bill, which President Trump signed into law on December 20, 2018, removed hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) from the Controlled Substances Act. In order to register a trademark in the United States, the mark must be used in a lawful setting, meaning that the USPTO does not register trademarks for products that violate federal law- even if it is legal under state law.

In their guidance document, the USPTO identifies the distinction between hemp and other cannabis varieties as the basis for either issuing or refusing a trademark registration. This means that in the trademark application, companies need to specify that the cannabis product is derived from hemp, or cannabis with less than 0.3% THC in dry weight.

The USPTO clarifies that applications for trademarks that involve CBD filed before December 20, 2018 will be refused, but if they amend the filing date to after that date, the registration will be examined. Below is a direct quote from their examination guide clarifying this:

For applications filed before December 20, 2018 that identify goods encompassing CBD or other cannabis products, registration will be refused due to the unlawful use or lack of bona fide intent to use in lawful commerce under the CSA. Such applications did not have a valid basis to support registration at the time of filing because the goods violated federal law. However, because of the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, the goods are now potentially lawful if they are derived from “hemp” (i.e., contain less than 0.3% THC). Therefore, the examining attorney will provide such applicants the option of amending the filing date and filing basis of the application to overcome the CSA as a ground of refusal.

The USPTO’s Examination Guide explicitly mentions the authority of the FDA to regulate products derived from cannabis, much like the 2018 Farm Bill’s language. There is still some confusion in the cannabis industry surrounding the marketing and sale of hemp products under FDA regulation.

FDAlogoUnder the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), using a drug in a food or dietary supplement that is currently undergoing clinical trials is illegal (as is the case here- see Epidiolex for an example of CBD being used as an active ingredient in an FDA-approved clinical trial). According to the USPTO, this means that “registration of marks for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused as unlawful under the FDCA, even if derived from hemp, as such goods may not be introduced lawfully into interstate commerce.”

Regarding trademarks for services involving “cannabis and cannabis production,” the USPTO also issued guidance. This section of the Examination Guide pertains to companies applying for a trademark that fall in the category of ancillary services, such as growing supply companies, lighting, nutrients, pest control and packaging, among other service providers. Basically, this section boils down to the same distinction the Farm Bill made between hemp and other varieties of cannabis. An applicant for a trademark needs to make clear their identification of services offered as involving cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC.

For a helpful guide breaking down what this means for cannabis companies pursuing a trademark registration, Christiane Schuman Campbell, partner at Duane Morris LLP, published this client alert about the USPTO’s examination guide.

Top 5 Cybersecurity Threats To The Cannabis Industry

By Lalé Bonner
No Comments

Is your cannabis business an attractive target for cyber criminals? With the influx of investment to this market and new businesses opening frequently throughout the United States, the legal cannabis industry is a prime target for cyber criminals.

Never share personal information (login and passwords, social security numbers, payment card information, etc.) over email.Cannabis industry hackers pick their targets by vulnerability, exploiting consumer or patient data to darknet black markets and forums. The impact can be devastating to both the business and their consumers. With new laws on protecting consumer and patient data on the horizon, businesses that do not adequately protect that data, could face stiff fines, in addition to losing the trust of their customers.

So, how do these attacks present themselves? Recent studies implicate employees as the “weakest link” in the cybersecurity chain due to a lack of cybersecurity best practices and training. Implementing safeguards and providing employee training is imperative to the cybersecurity health of your business.

Now, let’s identify the top 5 cybersecurity threats to the cannabis industry and some valuable tips for protecting against these criminal hacks:

PhishingPhishing is a form of cyber-attack, typically disguised as an official email from a trustworthy entity, attempting to dupe the recipient into revealing confidential information or downloading malware. Don’t take the bait! 91 percent of cyber-attacks start as phishing scams, with most of these lures being cast through fraudulent emails.

  • Tips: Do not download attachments from unknown senders!
  • Never share personal information (login and passwords, social security numbers, payment card information, etc.) over email.

Password ManagementPassword complexity is key to protecting against cyber breaches. When it comes to data hacking, 81 percent of breaches are caused by stolen or weak passwords. With a password often being the only barrier between you and a data breach, creating a complex password will dramatically decrease those password-sniffers from obtaining your sensitive information.

  • Tips: Create passwords that are at least 12 characters in length – include letters, numbers and symbols (*$%^!), and never use a default password. This will fend off brute-force attacks.
  • Change passwords every six months to a year, keeping them complicated and protected. For IT Managers, make using a password manager mandatory for all employees. (Pro-tip: LastPass is free).Be cautious with network selection as hackers set up free Wi-Fi networks that appear to be associated with an institution.

Public Wi-FiBeing able to connect in public spaces, while a modern marvel of convenience, leaves us wide open to cyber-attacks. Whether you are in an airport or café, always err on the side of caution.

  • Tips: Be cautious with network selection as hackers set up free Wi-Fi networks that appear to be associated with an institution.
  • Browse in a “private” or “incognito” window to avoid saving information. If you have a VPN, use it. If not, then do not handle any sensitive data.

BYOD: Beware of Bad Apps: Using personal devices for work has become the norm. In fact, approximately 74 percent of businesses have bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies or plans to adopt in the future.

With these platforms providing greater access to mobile apps, comes greater responsibility on the part of the end user.

  • Tips: Password protect devices that will be used for work (and, any device in general).
  • Only download applications from a trusted, authorized app store. Do not use untrusted play apps.
  • Mobile device protection is recommended for any device being used on a business network.

Whether it is an app from an unauthorized website or a lost/stolen device that was not password protected, cyber criminals do not need much to compromise critical data.Avoid logging into a SaaS application on a public computer or public Wi-Fi network.

SaaS Selectively: Keep Sensitive Data Safe: SaaS (Software As A Service) are cloud-based software solutions and chances are you are using one of these SaaS solutions for work purposes. IT is typically responsible for implementing security controls for SaaS applications, but ultimate responsibility falls on IT and the end user jointly. Here is what you can do to help keep these solutions safe:

  • Tips: Avoid logging into a SaaS application on a public computer or public Wi-Fi network.
  • Never share your SaaS login credentials with unauthorized persons over digital format or in person. Lastly, if you need to step away, always lock your screen during an active session.

While these tips will help keep your consumer/patient data from falling into the wrong hands, always have a plan B- backup plan! Your plan B must incorporate saving important data to a backup drive daily. Most likely, there is already a backup protocol in place for your mission-critical work data; however, for sanity’s sake, back up your BYOD devices as well.

5 Compliance Reporting and Notification Requirements That You May Not Know About

By Anne Conn
1 Comment

New cannabis businesses must demonstrate proof of compliance to myriad laws and regulations as part of the initial license application process. And once a license is issued, it is easy to prioritize day-to-day business operations over ongoing compliance reporting requirements especially when sales are booming and compliance requirements are multi-layered, vague or obscured in non-cannabis specific programs and regulations.

But seemingly benign neglect of some minor reporting requirements can have major consequences to new and established businesses alike.

This article explores five compliance reporting requirements that cannabis businesses may not know about, and suggests ways to maintain a strong compliance posture across all regulatory agencies.

Pesticide Reporting

All licensed growers are required to prove compliance to state pesticide usage regulations. However, expectations on how and when to provide that proof of compliance vary greatly from state to state.  Furthermore, the responsibility of education and enforcement for pesticide usage in the cannabis industry often falls to non-cannabis specific agencies such as state departments of agriculture or environmental compliance.

For example in California, cultivators must report detailed monthly pesticide use reports via the State’s Agriculture Weights/Measures Division reporting portal, while Washington State regulators simply expect cultivators to keep records locally on site and provide them when requested.

With so many places to look, the best place to start your pesticide reporting requirement search is with your local agriculture department. They should be able to answer your questions and provide you with a list of resources to help you better understand how to comply with state pesticide usage and reporting regulations.

Hazardous Materials Reporting

Like pesticide use and reporting, hazardous waste handling and reporting requirements are complex and vary state to state. In fact, there may even be nuanced variations in handling requirements at the county level. The best approach to ensure compliance with a complicated set of regulations is to start by consulting your local county fire department. They will have the most specific set of rules for hazardous materials handling and reporting and can help you develop a site-specific compliance plan.

Two OSHA reporting requirements

Depending on how your cannabis business is classified, you may be required to keep injury and illness incident records and provide reports to the Occupational Health and Safety Organization (OSHA) for specific time periods.

Contact your business insurance provider’s loss prevention representative for more information about how your business is classified, which specific OSHA reporting requirements apply to you, and how to stay in compliance with applicable OSHA requirements.

Click here to learn more about how OSHA organizes reporting requirements by business type.

A note of caution here: OSHA non-compliance penalties can be steep and “I didn’t know I was supposed to do that” is not an acceptable defense when it comes to explaining any OSHA violations.

Labor Law Notification Requirements

Federal labor law requires that you notify employees of their rights. At a minimum, you post information regarding wages and hours, child labor, unemployment benefits, safety and health/workers’ compensation and discrimination in a conspicuous place where they are easily visible to all employees. Some states requires additional information be posted in a similar manner, so it’s important to be sure that those notices are posted along with the federal requirements.

This is a simple, yet easily overlooked, requirement for all businesses, regardless of industry. Ask your insurance provider for a copy of the notice to print and post right away (if you have not already) for a quick compliance win!

These five reporting and notification requirements may seem tedious, overly complicated and burdensome in the face of day-to-day business operations, but compliance to these requirements not only protects your business and employees, it also enhances the overall reputation of the industry. The good news is that regulatory agencies welcome a proactive approach and are happy to work with cannabis businesses to provide guidance and information for developing compliance plans.

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 3

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a series by Richard Naiberg where he discusses how cannabis businesses can protect their intellectual property in Canada. Part 1 introduced the topic and examined the use of trade secrets in business and Part 2 went into how business owners can protect new technologies and inventions through applying for patents. Part 3, below, delves into plant breeders’ rights and how breeders in Canada could protect new plant varieties.

Plant Breeders’ Rights: Protection For New Plant Varieties

Unlike the Patent Act, Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Act does provide intellectual property protection for whole plants. Plant breeder’s rights are available for new cannabis plants, whether they are the product of genetic engineering or more traditional cross breeding.

The applicant must also propose a name (referred to as a “denomination”) for the new variety that is acceptable to the Commissioner.The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act focuses on the material used to propagate a new variety of plant, such as its seeds. The owner of a plant breeder’s right can stop others from selling, producing or reproducing the propagating material, conditioning the propagating material for use, exporting or importing the propagating material, repeatedly using the protected variety to commercially produce another variety, and stocking the propagating material for the purpose of doing any of the above acts. The owner can also assert these same rights to stop another’s activities as they relate to another plant variety that is essentially derived from the protected variety. The owner can also recover for the damages it suffers as a result of any infringement. For cannabis plants, the term of a plant breeder’s rights endures for 20 years from the date of its issuance.

To register a plant-breeder’s right, a breeder provides an application to the Commissioner of Plant Breeders’ Rights Office, which is part of Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

To be registrable, the plant variety must be new, meaning that the propagating material has not been sold in Canada more than 1 year prior to the application (or elsewhere more than 4 years prior to the application); it must be distinguishable from all varieties that are known to exist at date of filing of the application; it must be sufficiently homogeneous, meaning that its relevant characteristics are predictable and commercially acceptable; and it must be stable in its essential characteristics over successive generations. Registration under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act provides plant breeders’ rights in Canada only. However, Canada is a signatory to a treaty (UPOV) that allows an application originally filed in Canada to provide priority for registration in other member countries, and vice versa.The Commissioner also has the power to require the performance of tests on a sample of the propagating material, such as to verify its stated characteristics.

The applicant must also propose a name (referred to as a “denomination”) for the new variety that is acceptable to the Commissioner. The Plant Breeder’s Rights Act puts limits on what may be chosen as the denomination. Among other things, the denomination cannot refer to characteristics the variety does not have, suggest that it is derived from another variety or bred by a particular breeder when this is not case, or comprise laudatory descriptives that could cause confusion. The denomination cannot be used or registered as a trademark and, once accepted by the Commissioner, must be used by all traders when selling the propagating material, even after the expiry of the plant breeder’s right. Indeed, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act makes it an offence to misuse or misapply the name. The same denomination will be used for the same variety in all UPOV countries.

The application process can involve some back-and-forth with the Commissioner, as well as the opportunity for others to oppose the registration. The Commissioner also has the power to require the performance of tests on a sample of the propagating material, such as to verify its stated characteristics.

A unique feature of a plant breeder’s right is that it can be enforced even before the Commissioner finishes his or her review against infringers who are given notice of the applicant’s application.

As of this writing, there are three registered denominations of cannabis plants under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. Chris Griffin has registered “Big C” – cannabis sativa subsp. indica; and MedReleaf Corp. has registered MR2017001 and MR2017002, both being varieties of cannabis sativa. It is expected that further registrations will follow.

There are some important limitations to the plant breeder’s rights. Farmers who harvest the plant variety on their “holdings” are given a privilege: they can store, produce and reproduce (but cannot sell) the variety on such holdings. The Commissioner also has the power to issue compulsory licenses when a protected variety is not available to the public at reasonable rates. Further, the plant breeder’s right is not infringed when the protected variety is used for non-commercial or experimental purpose.


In Part 4 of the series, Naiberg will discuss trademarks and how cannabis businesses should go about protecting their brand identity in Canada. Stay tuned for more!

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 2

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the second article in a series by Richard Naiberg where he discusses how cannabis businesses can protect their intellectual property in Canada. Part 1 introduced the topic and examined the use of trade secrets in business. Part 2 goes into how business owners can protect new technologies and inventions through applying for patents.


Patents: Protection For New And Inventive Technology

Patents, which are issued in accordance with Canada’s Patent Act, provide their owners with the right to have a Court prevent anyone else in Canada from making, using, selling, importing or exporting what is claimed as the patent’s invention. The owner of the patent enjoys this monopoly for a period of 20 years from the date the patent is applied for. A patent is infringed even if the infringer arrives at the invention independently, without actual copying. If a patent owner brings a lawsuit and the Court finds infringement, the Court will typically order the infringing activity to cease and require the infringer to pay the owner a suitable amount of compensation.

There are several drawbacks to applying for a patent from the point of view of the applicant.Patents are meant to protect only inventions, meaning novel, non-obvious and useful solutions to practical problems. In the cannabis field, such inventions could include engineered genetic sequences or new plant cells that lead to useful improvements in the whole plant, new cultivation processes, new methods of extraction, new methods of storage or means to enhance stability, new formulations for administration, and new uses for the plant. It would not be uncommon for a cannabis producer to hold a suite of different patents that cover a whole range of innovative technologies and innovative business methods.

Not all classes of technical innovations are protectable by patent. For example, patents are not available for a whole cannabis plant because no patents are allowed on higher, multicellular organisms. Patents are not issued for genetic sequences or cells that are the result of cross breeding. Patents are also unavailable to monopolize methods of using cannabis as a medical treatment. That said, patent agents are skilled at casting innovations in areas such as these in terms that do provide some patent rights.

To obtain a patent, the applicant hires a patent agent to prepare and submit an application to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). An examiner at CIPO reviews the application for compliance with the statutory requirements and enters into a correspondence with the applicant’s patent agent in a process known as a patent prosecution. Third parties also have the opportunity to oppose the grant of a patent on limited grounds. The prosecution may continue for a period of years before the application is either allowed to issue to patent, or is ultimately rejected. Separate patent applications must be filed in every country in which patent rights are sought, though there are international treaties that facilitate these separate filings and preserve early priority filing dates.there can be a significant cost in obtaining patents, particularly if patent rights are sought in multiple countries.

It is important to emphasize that if an invention had been disclosed to the public more than one year before the application for the patent is filed, a patent cannot issue. Cannabis producers must therefore ensure that disclosures of their innovative work be controlled, including when working with partners. This can typically be handled with the use of appropriate non-disclosure agreements.

The prospect of market exclusivity makes the filing of patent applications a must for cannabis businesses, including those just starting out. For a start-up, simply filing a patent application projects that the company has value and a clear vision of its business. Venture capital often seeks companies with patent applications on file because the applications can mature into assets which can be monetized either by protecting a market for the owner, or through assignment or license to others.

cannabis researchers and producers have already filed hundreds of patent applications in Canada. There are several drawbacks to applying for a patent from the point of view of the applicant. Unlike the case for a trade secret, an applicant for a patent must make full and correct disclosure of the invention and how to use it in the patent itself. This disclosure will allow competitors to understand the applicant’s technology. The public disclosure provides a blueprint for competitors to build upon the patent’s disclosure, and to design around it to avoid infringement. Also, and unlike trade secrets, patents have an expiry date after which the public is free to practice the invention. The Commissioner also has the power to issue compulsory licenses to third parties in several circumstances, including when the demand for the patented article is not being met on reasonable terms. Further, the patent right is not infringed when the patented invention is used for non-commercial or experimental purpose. Finally, there can be a significant cost in obtaining patents, particularly if patent rights are sought in multiple countries.

Disadvantages or not, cannabis researchers and producers have already filed hundreds of patent applications in Canada. These applications relate to a wide range of inventions in the cannabis field including new cannabis resins and oils, methods of producing cannabis having improved properties, specific new growing processes, new harvesting methods, new extraction techniques, new formulations for human and veterinary use as foods, medicines and supplements, new delivery devices, new purification methods, new analytical methods, and new stabilization methods. Interested companies can access these disclosures from the public record.

As cannabis companies rush to obtain patent monopolies for their technologies, minefields are created for operating companies. Cannabis producers should obtain reports on what patent applications exist and might be asserted against their operations if and when these applications mature to issuance. With that intelligence in hand, the cannabis producer can understand what threats can be safely ignored and what patents must be addressed by assignment or license, by ‘design around’ or by developing an argument as to why the patent is invalid and thus unenforceable.


Editor’s Note: In Part 3 of this series, which will be published next week, Naiberg will discuss plant breeders’ rights and protecting new plant varieties. Stay tuned for more!

Basic Training for Employers and Employees in the Cannabis Industry

Basic Training for Employers and Employees in the Cannabis Industry

By Lindsay Engle
5 Comments
Basic Training for Employers and Employees in the Cannabis Industry

The cannabis industry is evolving as more states begin to legalize; as the legalization of cannabis grows, the industry will need more well-informed dispensaries and dispensary employees.

Unfortunately, there are employees in dispensaries without proper training and some are put in positions to recommend specific strains to patients that may not be accurate. Getting proper training is important, no matter which cannabis job you want to pursue.

More Training Is Needed

Currently, there are no national standards for training dispensary employees, there is not even a licensing code. Therefore, it is important for owners to investigate state laws and understand legal minimums for worker education.

There are states, like Massachusetts, which requires a $500 fee for employee registration. There are other states that require cannabis employees receive a certain number of education hours on specific topics, like patient confidentiality.

Overall, more than fifty percent of cannabis dispensary staff has reported receiving some type of formal training and only twenty percent of staff members have received medical cannabis training.Basic Training for Employers and Employees in the Cannabis Industry

Dispensary staff should receive training on how and when to make appropriate suggestions to patients. Any successful dispensary owner will acknowledge that employee education pays off in reduced loss, increased sales and avoided fines. There are more benefits to employee training than just these and there are steps owners can take to ensure they are getting the most out of their business and employees.

Setting up a System

When a dispensary has protocols in place that show how the business operates, the company will have consistency and organization. No matter the task, all team members must follow specific procedural protocols.

Mostly, mistakes are made when steps are missed or misunderstood by new employees, but with proper and thorough training, this can be avoided. Owners should be investing in a POS software system that is straightforward; this will reduce training time and make it easier for new staff to be familiar with the system.Having budtenders that can educate and connect with the customers on a personal level is invaluable

Teaching budtenders to adopt a soft sell technique will be the most effective when it comes to increasing sales. Many customers seeking relief using cannabis are not going to respond to a hard sell technique, as this comes off pushy or aggressive.

There are going to be customers who are unsure of what products they want; theses customers will need guidance, and training employees to make suggestions based on what the customer is looking for is the best sales practice.

Having budtenders that can educate and connect with the customers on a personal level is invaluable; dispensaries that do this will have repeat customers.

More States Legalizing, More Dispensaries and More Employees

As the United States heads towards cannabis legalization, slowly but surely, we need to be prepared to train workers. When you have a dispensary that you have already spent millions of dollars on the application process, you don’t have time to be messing around with employees that are not serious.

There are many different options anyone in the cannabis industry can seek out to educate themselves more in the business.Those distributing cannabis must take their duties as seriously as pharmaceutical technicians, because in a sense that is what they are doing. They are giving information on the prescription or drug to a customer that is using it for an intended a purpose.

Cannabis users come in many different ages and aliments. It is important for budtenders and dispensary owners to understand the backgrounds of each customer to increase their up-sale potential.

While compassion isn’t something you can learn online or in a classroom, it is always a good idea to remind others to be compassionate. The budtender that asks the right questions, takes time with each patient to care for them and goes over practical products for the client will be the budtender with the most sales revenue.

Higher Learning

There are many different options anyone in the cannabis industry can seek out to educate themselves more in the business.

Some platforms are available online and are filled with important content that can teach you about different aspects of the cannabis plant and industry. These classes can prepare employees or owners for success.The most important training will be the training of patients

There are courses that can educate you in how to cook and healing with cannabis. You can also learn about laws on a state-by-state basis when you are enrolled in a cannabis-training program. The cannabis industry is large and growing; entrepreneurs, lawyers and caregivers can learn about the growing movement and expand their knowledge on this topic.

Patient Training

The most important training will be the training of patients, who will be navigating between the world of western medication and the new option of medicinal cannabis.

There are obviously many positive things that will come from the legalization of cannabis, one of the biggest being more options for pain management patients. There is a misconception that people are using medicinal cannabis as an excuse to get high; however, many patients in most states are over the age of 50.

In 2016, it was estimated that 650,000 Americans were using cannabis in compliance with the laws of their state. As legalization grows to a national level, we are going to need to be educating patients.

It is important for citizens to talk to their doctors about methods they believe will work best for them. It is necessary to communicate strains that are ineffective or unsatisfying. Keeping a cannabis journal is a good way to know what dose and strain you benefit from the most.

There are many ways patients can be educated in the cannabis industry, and dispensaries that encourage patient education will grow customer loyalty. The person who knows the facts and is confident in their information will be more successful than the person who guesses.

Be sure you, your staff and your customers know the laws, strains and can accurately answer questions about cannabis.

CannaVation logo

Jefferson University Cannabis Innovation Competition Accepting Submissions

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
CannaVation logo

Thomas Jefferson University’s Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp announced recently that it is co-sponsoring the third annual JAZ Tank Challenge: CannaVATION Edition.

Jefferson Innovation’s 2018 JAZ Tank Challenge: CannaVATION Edition is currently accepting submissions of innovative business models for a chance to compete on October 3, where finalists will each present their business ideas in a 10-minute pitch. Winning submissions could get one free provisional or utility patent application and business and clinical consulting services. The competition will be accepting submissions through August 20, 2018.

Finalists will compete for a $10,000 grand prize, legal support and business consultation services.  According to the announcement, in addition to the grand prize winner, up to two other teams could win $5,000 in financial support, one free provisional or utility patent application and consulting services as well.

to Zoe McKinley, director of entrepreneurship and social impact initiative at the Lambert Center
Zoe McKinley, director of entrepreneurship and social impact initiative at the Lambert Center

According to Zoe McKinley, director of entrepreneurship and social impact initiative at the Lambert Center, the competition is designed to have a national focus, not just on the Pennsylvania cannabis industry. “We are excited to shine a spotlight on Pennsylvania, and Thomas Jefferson University specifically, as a hub for research in medical cannabis, but like the competition, the Lambert Center has a national and even international focus,” says McKinley. She says this is also the first year that the JAZ tank is exclusively focused on cannabis.

Jefferson’s Chief Innovation Officer, Dr. Rose Ritts, notes “the competition is about creating a platform for emerging concepts to get a toe-hold on the path to potential commercialization. Anything that will improve patient access or outcomes …or improve the industrial hemp market in the U.S. is definitely of interest,” says Ritts. “We welcome companies to jump into the Challenge, and we also welcome investors or anyone thinking about getting into this space to be in the audience for our event on October 3.”

Dr. Rose Ritts, Jefferson’s Chief Innovation Officer
Dr. Rose Ritts, Jefferson’s Chief Innovation Officer

The challenge is an annual healthcare startup competition, where new businesses with particularly innovative ideas and technology solutions for the legal cannabis space submit their business models to a panel of judges for review. “This event will bring together the most inventive minds to pitch their solutions to stakeholder problems in the still-emerging medical and medicinal cannabis and industrial hemp industries,” reads the announcement. The Lambert Center is seeking applicants in a wide variety of business areas, including patient access, product design, plant science, information management, horticultural technology, sustainability, transportation, security, workforce training, community outreach, banking and public education.

Lambert Center Director Charles Pollack, MD sees the massive growth potential of the legal cannabis industry. “At our Center we are dedicated to identifying new approaches to developing cannabinoid-based therapies that help patients with various debilitating symptoms and diseases,” says Pollack. “Our JAZ Tank Challenge may identify the next great idea in medicinal cannabis.”

CannaVation logoThrough the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, Jefferson is the first major university in the US to provide a comprehensive academic resource for the medicinal, medical and industrial applications and business of cannabis and hemp. The Lambert Center, the first of its kind in academia, provides “expert-developed, unbiased information to clinicians and patients about medical cannabis and cannabinoid-based therapies,” according to their website. They want to “support the development of entrepreneurial and socially responsible business and clinical approaches within the emerging medical cannabis industry and explore and develop new ways to use hemp in medical, industrial, and consumer products,” reads the website.

McKinley mentions they are looking for creative approaches to solving problems in the medical cannabis and industrial hemp industry. “These could be anything from new products or supply chain innovations to patient support tools to energy management systems that lower the environmental impact of grow facilities,” says McKinley. “We are hoping to see companies that have already launched, or are ready to very quickly.” The third annual JAZ Tank Challenge: CannaVATION Edition is accepting submissions through August 20. Click here for more information.

Pennsylvania Medical Cannabis Program Blossoms

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis program may be young, but the industry in that state is off to a burgeoning start. Back in 2016, the state legalized medical cannabis. In 2017, the PA Department of Health began accepting applications for licenses and announced the first 12 winning applications. On February 15th, 2018, medical cannabis became available for more than 17,000 patients that registered in the program.

In March of this year, Governor Tom Wolf announced two more dispensaries were approved to operate as well as another grower/processor licensee. At that time, the press release indicated more than 21,000 patients have registered to participate in the medical cannabis program.

Then in April, Governor Wolf announced Phase Two of their medical cannabis program, allowing the industry to grow even more. That allowed for 13 new grower/processor permits and 23 new primary dispensary permits, according to a press release, which moved the total up to 25 grower/processors licensees and 50 dispensary licensees.

Just weeks later after that announcement, the PA Department of Health adjusted their program to allow patients access to whole plant, dried flower and opened up more qualifying conditions. The qualifying conditions added to the list now include cancer remission therapy as well as opioid-addiction therapy, which are two very notable additions. According to an April 6threport, 28,508 patients and 2495 caregivers registered with the program.

On May 15th, Governor Wolf approved eight universities to participate in a groundbreaking program, allowing Pennsylvania to take the first steps towards clinical research for medical cannabis. This research program would be the first of its kind in the country, allowing research institutions to explore the drug. The excitement was put on hold, however, when a Pennsylvania judge halted the program with an injunction. A handful of growers and dispensary owners in PA filed suit to stop the program on grounds that it violated the original intent of the law. State Representative Kathy Watson from Bucks County, the author of the research program, called the suit “pathetic because it’s all about the money.” We’ll follow closely with any new developments as they come.

Steve Schain, Esq. practicing at the Hoban law Group

Steven Schain, Esq., senior attorney at Hoban Law Group, a global cannabis law firm, represents multiple cannabis-related businesses in Pennsylvania. He says the program’s roll out has been fast with solid growth. “Within two years of the legislation’s enactment, Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program has exceeded expectations with controlled, sustainable and quality growth,” says Schain. “The Pennsylvania Department of Health established ambitious goals, which they met timely and created a statewide program servicing over 10,000 patients in record time. Looming ahead is New Jersey’s adult use program, the anticipated robustness of which could undermine vigorous sales in southeastern Pennsylvania’s marijuana-related businesses.”

On May 30th, Philadelphia welcomed their first medical cannabis dispensary, with a location opening up their doors to patients in Fishtown. Now reports are coming in that say more than 37,000 patients have registered to date, with over 16,000 who have received their ID cards and medical cannabis at a dispensary.

Even though the research program might be on hold for now, Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis program is growing at a fast pace. The market there has blossomed in just a few short months to a whopping 37,000-registered patients, according to a press release form Governor Wolf’s office. Some say an additional 200,000 patients could qualify. With the second phase in sight, it seems Pennsylvania is on track to become a hotbed for business and research, developing into a massive medical cannabis marketplace soon. Stay tuned for more updates.