Canopy Growth Corporation, continues to move aggressively across Europe to solidify its presence across the continent. As of the beginning of November, Canopy’s European HQ in Frankfurt announced that the company is currently eyeing additional cultivation sites in Spain, Italy and Greece.
Aphria is also making news. The producer has just announced that it is seeking EU GMP certification and its intention to buy existing German distributor CC Pharma, with distribution reach to 13,000 pharmacies. Earlier in the year, Aphria acquired German Nuuvera, a global cannabis company currently exploring opportunities in Israel and Italy beyond Germany.
But that is also not the only thing going on “in town.” Wayland Corp also has announced recently that it is going to be producing in Italy in a unique cleantech, biogas fueled facility, and even more interestingly, working with a university on high-tech absorption techniques to help standardize dosing for (at present) CBD.
The European Production Industry Is Growing At Lightning Speed
Buoyed by their experience in the Canadian market, LPs are now focusing on Europe with even more intensity as the drama over the German cultivation bid, British schedule II access (no matter what happens with Brexit), and medical cannabis reform itself unfold.
As a group, they have money and talent, but are now also aware that they are not the only game around.
Producers from the rest of the world, including South America, are increasingly eyeing the European market, frequently in combination with Canadian corporate ties (see ICC and Hexo). So are institutional investors (from the U.S. in particular). The European market represents, as a region, the first real medical market anywhere and a healthcare system set to absorb a great deal of cannabis sales.
One thing is also increasingly crystal clear. Not being in the room, especially at the top industry conferences now establishing themselves across the continent, but even more particularly in Germany, is the best way to be locked out of a highly valuable and rapidly expanding market.
It has been a busy couple of weeks for Aurora executives, no matter what else is going on. And all signs indicate that Aurora is not only keeping its pressure on major competitors Tilray and Canopy in particular, but playing a highly sophisticated political and global game right now.
Where the company in other words is not “winning,” Aurora is clearly establishing an effective global footprint that is ensuring that it is at least keeping pace with the speed of market development and even breaking new ground more than once recently.
The Aurora Tour Of The Global Stage In Late October
Forget what is going on in Canada for a moment, if that is possible. Global investors, certainly, in the aftermath of the post legalization glow, certainly seem to be. So are the big LPs like Aurora. They are looking elsewhere, to medical markets and to Europe, for more clarity on where the market will go.
Aurora certainly has been, even if unwittingly, caught in the middle of that conversation, in part because of where and how the company has been positioning itself lately.
Last time around, the company announced it was in the top ten finalists. This time, it is also expected to do well.That said, what Aurora is doing, like everyone else in this space right now, is playing a global game of hopscotch in terms of both raising equity and then where that capital gets spent. Aurora’s recent victories, certainly this year, indicate that it will continue to be a formidable presence in the room.
For now, however, it is clear that retail investors are suddenly cautious and institutional investors are clearly still very leery. So where does that leave Aurora?
Road Trip To Germany
Consider these interesting series of events. Canadian recreational reform “goes live” on October 17. Instead of sticking around Canada, however, CEO Cam Battley spoke at a recent investor road show for the Canadian public cannabis companies over the weekend of October 21-22 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three well placed, but anonymous industry sources confirmed to Cannabis Industry Journal that a meeting between all the major cannabis companies in Frankfurt over the weekend (including not only Aurora, but Wayland Corporation, Canopy, Aphria, Green Organic Dutchman and Hexo) was either planned or attempted with federal Minister of Health, Jens Spahn sometime during this period of time.
Even more interestingly, this conference had clearly been planned to coincide with the original due date of the new German cultivation bid, in which Aurora is also well positioned. Last time around, the company announced it was in the top ten finalists. This time, it is also expected to do well.
Whenever the bid finally is decided, that is.
As of October 23, the day of the IPO in New York and the day after the conference in Frankfurt concluded, news circulated that the bid had been delayed a second time, with rumours of further lawsuits swirling.
IPO In New York
That day, Tuesday October 23, Aurora announced its IPO on the NYSE, not in Frankfurt after announcing this possibility the month before. This is significant, namely because all of the cannabis companies listed here are essentially in what is known, colloquially, auf Deutsch, as being “in the dog house.” Namely, financial regulators are looking closely at listed companies’ profiles on the exchange. If a listed company is too associated with the recreational industry, trades will be barred from clearing by Clearstream, the daughter company of the Deutsche Börse and located in Luxembourg. Earlier in the summer, all of the major LPs were briefly on the restricted list.
The next day after Canadian recreational reform became reality in fact, on October 18, the Deutsche Börse made the latest in a series of comments regarding its intentions about their future decisions on the clearing of cannabis stocks. Namely, that at their discretion, they can prevent the clearing of stock purchases of a cannabis company at any time. In other words, essentially delisting the stock.
Aurora, with its ties to mainstream, “adult use” in North America, is absolutely affected by the same, certainly in the short term. Including of course, all those rumours about Coke’s interest in the company (still unconfirmed by both Aurora and Coke).
Looking Toward Poland
Yet here is where Aurora stays interesting. Just two days after its debut on the NYSE, the company announced that Aurora would be the first external company to be allowed to import medical cannabis to Poland (to a Warsaw hospital and pain clinic). The same day, incidentally, as the Polish government announced that medical cannabis could indeed begin to be imported.
This came after a stunning move earlier in the year when the company bagged the first medical cultivation license in Italy.
Clearly, Aurora is keeping good, if not powerful, company. And that will position it well in the long run. Even if, for now, its IPO on the NYSE got off to a less than powerful start.
Why Does Aurora Stand Out?
Like all the major cannabis companies on the global stage right now, Aurora understands what it takes to get into the room (wherever and whatever that room might be) in politically and regulatorily astute ways, much like Tilray. Both companies are also very similar in how they are continuing to execute market entry and public market strategy. Tilray, it should be remembered, went public over the summer, in North America too, right around the announcement of the final recreational date in Canada.
And while Aurora is clearly playing a still retail-oriented stock market strategy, it has proved over the last 18 months that it is shaping up to be a savvy, political player on the cusp of legislative change in multiple European states so far. They are courting the much bigger game now of institutional investment globally.
In Part 6, the conclusion of this series, we take a look at nine key takeaways from the series:We hope you enjoyed this series and found the information provided to be useful. If you’d like to learn more about intellectual property law in Canada as it relates to the cannabis industry, feel free to reach out to Richard Naiberg at email@example.com
Summary of Practical Considerations For Cannabis Producers
Cannabis producers should establish procedures by which the technological innovations achieved by their employees are kept confidential and are quickly reported to management for consideration as to whether the innovation should be protected as a trade secret, by patent, by plant breeder’s right or not protected at all.
If a trade secret protection is desired, the producer must invoke systems that limit knowledge of the secrets to those in the company with a need to know it, and make sure that departing employees understand their obligations of confidentiality and do not take any documentation of the secrets with them when they go.
The nature of the innovation under consideration will drive the choice between a patent and a plant breeder’s right. Plant breeder’s rights only protect whole plants. Patents protect other innovations, subject to the limitations described above. Patents may be drafted to protect whole plants, albeit indirectly: a patent on genetic sequences or engineered cell can be infringed by a whole plant that incorporates those sequences or cells.
The decision as to whether to file an application for a patent or a plant breeder’s right, and in what jurisdiction(s), should be made with careful consideration of whether the producer will employ the invention/variety in its business (and in what countries), as well as the potential value of the invention/variety to other producers who may eventually become licensees of the resulting patent(s) or plant breeder’s right.
Cannabis producers must remain up-to-date on patent and plant breeder’s rights applications that are filed in the jurisdictions in which they operate so as to be in a position to identify patents and plant breeder’s rights that will potentially affect their freedom to operate. Such due diligence will also allow the producer to predict the technological and business focuses of their competitors.
Cannabis producers must select a trademark that is immediately distinctive or can quickly become distinctive of its goods and services. The trademarks ought to be fully available, in the sense that they are not in use by any competing business in any of the jurisdictions in which the producer intends to do business. Ideally, the trademark ought to be available as a domain name to ensure that there is no confusion on the Internet.
Once the trademark is selected, the cannabis producer should make consistent and extensive use of that trademark. The more consistent and ubiquitous the use, the stronger the producer’s brand and trademark will be.
The owner of the trademark must routinely conduct searches to ensure that no third party is using a trademark that is similar that of the owner. If such unauthorized use is discovered, the owner must act quickly to restrain that use or potentially license the use.
Cannabis producers ought to contract to ensure that they are the first owners or assignees of any copyright subsisting in the artwork, literature and websites the company creates or hires other to create. Producers ought also to obtain waivers of the moral rights of any authors of this work.
We hope you enjoyed this series and found the information provided to be useful. If you’d like to learn more about intellectual property law in Canada as it relates to the cannabis industry, feel free to reach out to Richard Naiberg at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright: Protection for Works of Creative Expression
In the course of describing and marketing its products, the cannabis producer will prepare or have prepared any number of articles, instructions, write-ups, photographs, videos, drawings, web site designs, packaging, labeling and the like. Copyright protects all such literary and artistic works from being copied by another.
Copyright arises upon the creation of the work, although one can register the copyright under the Copyright Act for a minimal cost.Canada’s Copyright Act provides that the owner of copyright has the exclusive right to make copies of copyrighted work for the lifetime of its author, and for fifty years thereafter. The Court will enforce this copyright, stopping infringements and ordering infringers to compensate the owner in damages, accountings of profits and delivery up of infringing material for destruction. Intentional copying or renting out of a copyrighted work is also an offence that can attract imprisonment. The owner of a copyright can also request the seizure of infringing articles being imported or exported in Canada.
Copyright arises upon the creation of the work, although one can register the copyright under the Copyright Act for a minimal cost. Registration creates a presumption that copyright subsists in the work and that the registrant is the owner, presumptions that can simplify copyright proceedings. In litigation, the fact of registration also removes the ability of a defendant to argue that it did not have notice of the copyright, a factor relevant to the Court in awarding a remedy.Copyright protects all such literary and artistic works from being copied by another.
There are two aspects of copyright law that tend to cause confusion. The first involves the distinction between the right to use a copyrighted article and the copyright itself. To illustrate, consider the sale of a literary work, such as a book. The purchaser acquires the physical book but not the copyright. The purchaser can use the physical book and can sell that book to another. What the purchaser may not do is make and sell another copy of the book. Making copies is the exclusive right of the copyright holder.
The second involves the ownership of a commissioned work. The first owner of a copyright is either the author of the work or the employer of the author if the author creates the work in the course of his or her employment. Ownership of copyright can only be transferred by written assignment. Further, the author of a work is granted moral rights in the work, meaning the right to be associated with the work and the right to its integrity. These rights can be waived by the author but not assigned.
Ownership of copyright can only be transferred by written assignment.Therefore, if a company hires a third party supplier to prepare copyrightable work, such as brochures, artwork or web sites, and does not secure an assignment of the copyright and wavier of the author’s moral rights as part of the transaction, that supplier will own the copyright in the resulting work and the author of that work will have the right to insist on his or her moral rights. The hiring company will not have the right to make or authorize others to make copies of the work, to amend the work, to derive new works from what was delivered, or to use the work without reference to the name of the author or in a way so as to offend the author’s integrity. The supplier will also be free to sell the same brochures, artwork or web sites to other companies, or to derive other works from it. All of this is so even though the hiring company paid for the work to be done. This result is often surprising and disappointing to hiring companies.
Accordingly, cannabis producers contracting with the third parties for literature, photographs, web sites and the like will need to think about how they want to use the work in the future. It is simplest if the producer contracts to have the owner assign the copyright in the work to the producer upon creation, and deliver the author’s waiver of moral rights. While the third party will likely charge more for an assignment of the copyright and the waiver of moral rights, it may be worth avoiding negotiations over specific uses and how the author is to be credited, as well as avoiding the uncertainty inherent in trying to imagine how the producer will use the material in the future.
In the 6th and final part, Naiberg will summarize the key takeaways from his series that cannabis companies can use to protect their intellectual property in Canada.
Cannabis businesses must not only protect their investments in their technical creations, but also must protect their brand identities. A cannabis producer can invest heavily in making a desirable, high-quality product, and can advertise and sell this product so as to generate customer interest and goodwill, but if the customer cannot distinguish the producer’s product from that of its competitor, this investment is for not. Trademarks become unenforceable when they are no longer distinctive.
A trademark provides its owner with the right to have the Court stop another entity from using the trademark, or using a similar trademark in a way that confuses the public. When the trademark is infringed, the Court can also make a monetary award in favor of the trademark owner.
Trademarks are identifiers of a particular source of manufacture and they can take virtually any form. Trademarks can be words, phrases, symbols, names, designs, letters, numbers, colors, three-dimensional shapes, holograms, moving images, modes of packaging, sounds, scents, tastes, textures, or any other distinguishing element. What a trademark cannot be is a mere descriptor of the goods or services themselves because such a trademark would prevent other entities from describing their products in their ordinary terms.
Trademarks can be registered, but they do not have to be. In choosing a trademark, the cannabis producer must balance competing impulses: the desire to choose a trademark that is suggestive of the product itself so as to have an immediate meaning to customers without need of an expensive marketing campaign; and the desire to coin a unique and striking trademark which is instantly eye-catching and memorable, but which must be advertised before customers can understand the product to which it refers.
For example, a depiction of cannabis leaf or a word that plays on the ordinary terms used to refer to cannabis will not make a strong mark that can be enforced against those who adopt something similar. On the other hand, a coined word, such as “Kodak”, may have no independent association with cannabis but, after a time, use of this mark in association with a cannabis product can create a very strong mark with a wider ambit of exclusivity.
All that said, even a very suggestive mark can serve as a trademark where the use of the mark is so longstanding and ubiquitous that the suggestive mark acquires a secondary meaning as an indicator of its source of manufacture. Cannabis producers can and should also consider adopting specific colors, scents or tastes of their products as trademarks, where appropriate.
Trademarks become unenforceable when they are no longer distinctive. For this reason, trademark owners must keep abreast of any use of trademarks similar to their own by third parties, and must act quickly to either license such uses or to restrain them.Cannabis businesses have been very busy applicants for trademarks. More than 1700 such applications are now on file, though a comparative few have yet been registered.
Trademarks can be registered, but they do not have to be. When a company’s product or service becomes known to its customers or potential customers with reference to a mark through ordinary business use, a trademark has been created.
Registration does however provide certain advantages. Under the amendments to the Trademarks Act coming in 2019, a registered trademark can be obtained for without any proof of use or goodwill. By contrast, and as noted above, an unregistered mark must be used and possess goodwill before it can be said to exist at all. A registered trademark provides protection for its owner across Canada. An unregistered trademark can only be enforced in the geographical area in which its owner has established its reputation. A registered trademark is protected from those who use it in a manner that is likely to depreciate the goodwill of the trademark. An unregistered trademark only protects against consumer confusion.
Registration under the Trademarks Act also makes it an offence to sell goods or services on a commercial scale in association with another’s registered trademark, or to traffic in infringing labels. Further, a trademark owner can request that the import or export of such goods in Canada be arrested. No similar rights accrue for unregistered trademarks.
Finally, a registered trademark is published at the CIPO web site, providing notice of its existence to new market entrants before these entrants commit to using a similar trademark. Unregistered marks are not always easily discovered and a new market entrant may commit to a mark before having any opportunity to discover that it is the unregistered trademark of another.
Registering a trademark is straightforward. The applicant prepares an application that identifies the applicant, the trademark and the goods and/or services with which the trademark is being used or is intended to be used. Once satisfied that the application complies with the Trademarks Act, CIPO publishes the application to allow potential opponents of the registration to come forward. If there is no opposition, or if an opposition proceeding is brought and dismissed, the trademark is issued.
There is an interaction between the Trademarks Act and the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act. As discussed above, when a denomination has been adopted for a plant variety under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act, nothing similar can be adopted or registered as a trademark. This is so other traders may use the denomination in their sale of the variety after expiry of the plant breeder’s right.
Cannabis businesses have been very busy applicants for trademarks. More than 1700 such applications are now on file, though a comparative few have yet been registered. Trademark applications in this area are likely to increase further with the coming changes to the Trademarks Act and the removal of the requirement that applicants show use of the trademark prior to registration. Companies will be encouraged to apply for trademarks they may only be considering using, and for any trademarks that they think their competitors may be planning to use. There is some concern that the changes to the Trademarks Act will lead to the rise of trademark trolls.
Before adopting a particular trademark, the producer must do what it can to minimize the likelihood that a third party will assert that the trademark infringes the third party’s prior rights. Searches of Canadian and international trademarks, particularly United States trademarks, are advised. National intellectual property offices, such as CIPO and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, maintain easily searchable databases of registered and applied-for trademarks that should be reviewed. Search professionals can also assist in identifying trademarks that have never been the subject of a trademark application. With the result of the searches in hand, the cannabis producer can determine whether or not to proceed to adopt the contemplated mark and invest in its promotion.
In Part 5, Naiberg will explain how to use a copyright to protect works of creative expression. Stay tuned for more!
Read the glossy website or encounter their expensive marketing materials and lush swag at any upscale international cannabis business conference these days and you get a certain kind of impression. The new, modernist, chic European HQ in central Frankfurt, for example, with its floor-to-ceiling windows and breath-taking view of the city, river and mountains, continues to give that perspective far from home.The company has been at the forefront of the Canadian cannabis industry since 2013 and has subsequently weathered several mergers, buyouts and creative partnerships of all kinds.
But what’s of great interest about Canopy is that its highly slick corporate image is backed up by a solid performance elsewhere to date– and on a number of important, and globally impactful levels. Further, the company’s willingness to think strategically, globally, and take calculated, well-timed risks at the same time proves to be effective.
The Canadian Beginnings
The company has been at the forefront of the Canadian cannabis industry since 2013 and has subsequently weathered several mergers, buyouts and creative partnerships of all kinds. In the process it has also made financial history in the cannabis industry, becoming the first publicly listed cannabis company in the world a year after its founding.
So much of its iconic corporate history is in fact, ironically fading in the rapid birth of the full on recreational market at home. However, here is the elevator pitch. Born as Tweed, in 2013, in an abandoned former Hershey chocolate plant and the recipient of one of Canada’s first medical cultivation licenses, the company rapidly expanded with increased market access that reform brought. Inevitably, its success also spawned one of its closest competitors (Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp) after co-founder Chuck Rifici was ousted by a unanimous vote of the Canopy board.
In 2018, Canopy Growth still maintains its reputation as the first Canadian cannabis unicorn, even though its stock price is just half that of close competitor, Tilray.
In Canada, the company has long expanded adroitly beyond its central HQ with strategic partnerships and buyouts that range the gamut of grow and branding opportunities that are becoming increasingly as mainstream as, well, beer. These days, Canopy is well-poised to take advantage of the shifting Canadian regulatory landscape on several fronts.
The first is undeniably medical. The company has made patient access a cornerstone of its continuing market development strategy. In fact, current CEO and original cofounder, Bruce Linton, has recently told the press that in his view the medical market globally is the company’s first and most profitable focus.
No matter how many beer companies come calling. And that is also one of the company’s more notable, if not newsworthy accomplishments.
However it is on the international side that the company has really distinguished itself. That starts with the early (relatively speaking) and active interest in what was going on far from Canadian shores. Initially in Europe (but not limited to it). And even more centrally, how and where the company expanded its global medical reach.Canopy has spread its influence widely throughout Europe already
That started, from the Canopy perspective, with the decision to buy the small German GmbH called MedCann (now Spectrum Cannabis, the global medical brand of Canopy). Located just south of Frankfurt, an international but small team of globally experienced entrepreneurs managed to obtain the first import license for medical flower from Canada into Germany in the summer of 2016. Guided by the industry knowledge and business savvy if not entrepreneurial zeal that so often leads to naught, Pierre Debs and team faced a market still sceptical of medicinal cannabis domestically, and the burden of being “first.” Canopy was not yet in Europe, but they had more ready access to the market and capital. The Canopy buyout of MedCann was accomplished on December 12, 2016, six months before the first iteration of the German cultivation bid was announced. Canopy later announced that it had become one of the top ten finalists in the first iteration of the now restarted German cultivation bid.
Beyond Germany however, this unique team with deep local and global knowledge also began an immediate expansion policy in Europe and beyond that is still unfolding. Apparently in similar strategy adopted at home in the Canadian provinces, Canopy has spread its influence widely throughout Europe already. With an enormous supply contract from Spain’s Alcaliber and operations in Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and a few more (still currently unnamed) operations rolling out any day, the company is clearly building a solid, strategically dispersed infrastructure that reaches far beyond Europe, with global impact and influence.
Exhibit A? In April of this year, the company launched Spectrum Australia with support from the Victorian government.
The biggest controversy facing the company so far, albeit indirectly, involves pesticides. This issue occurred during the acquisition of an outside company called Mettrum. In other words, Canopy inherited the production liabilities of a purchased company. The acquisition, however, which passed the buck to Canopy to fix, was actually an opportunity for Canopy to implement its own high internal production and quality controls throughout Mettrum facilities.
This was not inexpensive or of small impact (it affected 21,000 medical users). In addition to taking a leadership role in addressing their acquisition’s production issues, CEO Linton publicly apologized to affected patients.
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!
This collection of leaders in the European cannabis market is by no means completely neutral. Much less comprehensive. It is however, German and European centric, because these people, by definition and geography, are now sitting at the nexus of a global, and even within Europe, international industry. Europe for that reason, will be the place, and for some time, where the global cannabis industry comes to make deals across borders, meet the high levels of compliance required here that is setting global standards and push the medical revolution forward for (at least) the next five to ten years.
For that reason, the people listed below carry influence far beyond one country or even region, by definition. But they are also not the only people redefining an industry.
Most notably, of course by their exclusion, are women, although there are some exceptions to that and women are increasingly establishing their place at high executive levels although not yet founder or cofounder or, auf Deutsch, Geschäftsfüherin– (Managing Director) at any of the establishing global companies with European presence. That said, they are beginning to make their appearance in every place and career path within the industry.
Movers and Shakers
Dr. Pierre Debs, Ph.D. An American expat with a German Ph.D., and twenty five plus years’ experience in stem cell research, including endocannabinoid system function. Debs is also the often uncredited individual who opened the current medical market in Germany in particular, but with immediate impact throughout Europe. As the scrappy start up MedCann, Debs, his cofounders and a skeleton team based just south of Frankfurt, not only got into the game first, they beat other established companies to obtain the first import license for Canadian flower in the summer of 2016. Including and most notably Tilray. MedCann GmbH at that point became the only other company besides Bedrocan, the perennial Dutch provider for the last twenty years to be able to provide medicinal, GMP-certified flower to the German market. That market distinction of course, did not last long as other companies quickly jumped into the ring but as the medical brand of Canopy, Debs has continued to lead industry development across Europe. Today, as the Geschäftsführerof Spektrum Cannabis GmbH (as MedCann was renamed after its purchase by Canopy sometime in Q4 2016-Q1 2017) and as Canopy Growth Corp Managing Director Europe, Debs has not only established but currently oversees operations in multiple European countries as Canopy Cannabis expands its global medical brand. From, it should also be added, its swanky new digs in central Frankfurt.
Tjalling Erkelens, Bedrocan founder and CEO. Bedrocan is the legacy cannabis player here in a game that is rapidly changing as it expands. The first exporter of medical cannabis in the world, the family owned company currently produces five different cannabis strains bound for the medical market, and is expected to be the beneficiary of the newly expanded import quota into Germany from Holland for medical grade flower, as well as place well in the German cultivation bid.
Gerhard Müller. The unassuming Chair of the Audit Committee of Wayland Group, the cannabis company formerly known as Maricann. Müller is less often in the English-speaking press than Ben Ward, company CEO. However, Müller is a force to be reckoned with as Wayland begins to unfold its usually understated strategy in Germany and Europe from its Munich HQ base. Müller is the former head of Ernst and Young’s GSA Tech Practice, also adding household names like Birgit Homburger and Christopher Peterka to Wayland’s German Advisory Board. Also of note is GM for Wayland Germany Josef Späth now tasked with bringing his connections and previous experience as a top, internationally experienced clean tech architect and engineer to the build out of Wayland’s infrastructure. This includes previous work with NASA Jet Propulsion Lab alumni to develop new techniques for harvesting and processing of cannabis. German ingenuity and engineering at its best!
Patrick Hoffmann, CEO of Aurora Deutschland (formerly Pedianos). This firm too, was one of the early start-ups to get into the distribution and cultivation game and so far they have proven to be adept at navigating the complex path to winning cultivation rights. Aurora placed in the top ten finalists for the last German cultivation bid. As Pedianos, the firm won the first distribution and cultivation deal for Italy, sourced via Berlin. They have already proven to be highly skilled at finding market advantages in an exploding European market puzzle.
David Henn, CEO of Cannamedical Pharma. The millennial at the front of the cannabis import and distribution craze in Germany, founded his start up in November 2016. Henn then obtained one of the first issued licenses for trading and ex-im of medical cannabis just as the law changed in Germany officially to mandate insurance coverage of medical cannabis by prescription. Since then, the fiercely independent entrepreneur has turned down multiple acquisition offers from companies in Canada, Israel and Australia. The Cologne-based company supplies a growing network of German pharmacies and entered into off-take agreements with major companies in Europe, Canada and Australia. Bolstered by its cash flow in the existing distribution business, Cannamedical is continually expanding and has already established European subsidiaries that are in the progress of obtaining additional production and distribution licenses for the company.
Peter Homburg. Partner, Denton’s Law Firm. Peter has already had an established career as a high-powered partner and the head of the firm’s Life Sciences Division. Yet like many people of different paths and persuasions, he began to explore the world of the legal end of the business several years ago. These days, albeit based in Frankfurt, he has helped establish the firm’s reputation internationally as a leading law firm in the cannabis space.
Rob Reid. Reid wears several influential hats based out of his offices in London. As the director of publicly listed, SOL Investments Corp (formerly Scythian), he invests in the U.S.-based cannabis industry. He is also the co-founder of European Cannabis Holdings (ECH), which is investing in a portfolio of private medical cannabis companies on this side of the pond. He is also the co-founder of Prohibition Partners, the increasingly prolific market intelligence and consultancy firm, and Cannabis Europa, a conference and networking platform. Finally, he is involved in a number of cultivation JVs around the world.
Marla Luther. As co-director for Tilray Europe (along with Sean Carney) and based in Berlin, Marla has the most senior leadership title of any woman in the cultivation and distribution industry in Europe. She has also been in the position for the last several years.
Alex Rogers. As the founder of the International Cannabis Business Conference (ICBC), Alex has established perhaps the first truly international cannabis conference brand catering to the professional end of the regulated industry but retaining the soul of the advocacy movement. The Berlin conference going into its third year in 2019, literally reset the standards if not stage for the next upgrade of the industry conference concept. Within a year of its first international conference in Berlin, Alex and his team had also established conferences in Canada and are establishing the B2B conference of Spannabis under their rubric in Barcelona as of next year.
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!
Cannabis producers are making large investments in new technologies to improve their plant varieties, production know-how and product formulations. At the same time, producers are working hard to create and promote more compelling, top-of-mind brand identities for their improved products. The series concludes with a 9-point outline of specific steps cannabis producers need to consider taking to protect their key intellectual property assets.
The value of these investments cannot be realized if competitors are allowed to copy and exploit the producer’s successes. Canada’s intellectual property laws can and should be used to protect cannabis producers from such predation. Invoking Canada’s laws to this end is not difficult and does not have to be expensive. It does, however, require specific, deliberate and early action.
This series of articles outlines the principal means of protecting intellectual property rights in the core technologies and marketing programs of cannabis companies. The series also highlights what any cannabis company must do to ensure that its own activities do not run afoul of another’s rights. No company wants to begin a new venture only to face a lawsuit for intellectual property infringement.
The series concludes with a 9-point outline of specific steps cannabis producers need to consider taking to protect their key intellectual property assets.
Trade Secrets: Protection For Confidential Know How
A trade secret is specific, commercially valuable information and know-how that is kept confidential within the company and cannot generally be reversed-engineered by outsiders. A trade secret provides protection over any type of information or know-how and is not subject to any expiry date. Trade secret protection is lost only when the information or know-how becomes available to the public.
As a best practice, defining the trade secret in a confidential document can be useful as a way of restricting access to the secretCannabis producers generate all kinds of valuable know-how that cannot be appreciated simply from an inspection of the vended product. Examples would include methods of crossbreeding, cultivation, harvesting, extraction and processing. Customer lists and other internal business structures and information may also qualify as trade secrets.
There are no statutory pre-conditions that must be met to obtain a trade secret. A trade secret is acquired simply upon the generation of valuable information or know-how that is kept confidential. As a best practice, defining the trade secret in a confidential document can be useful as a way of restricting access to the secret, and as evidence in proceedings as to the scope of the trade secret (an issue that is frequently in dispute in such cases).
For the trade secret to be maintained, the producer will need to take steps to ensure that access to the know-how and associated documents is restricted only to those who need to know the secret for purposes of carrying out their functions at the company. All personnel with access to the trade secret will need to be bound to confidence by employment agreement and/or by separate contract. When employees leave, they ought to be reminded of their obligations of confidentiality and must be prohibited from removing any documentation regarding the trade secret from the company. All outside companies who need access to the secret must sign non-disclosure agreements. It is typical for owners of trade secrets to be vigilant in their market surveillance and to engage private investigators when they suspect a trade secret has been stolen.
A trade secret’s very confidentiality provides its principal value. A competitor cannot copy what it has no ability to discern. However, when someone with access to the secret ‘goes rogue’, such as by using the know-how for his or her own account or for that of a new employer, the owner of the trade secret must act quickly and bring the matter before the Court. The Court has a broad discretion to stop the rogue and any persons or companies who learn the secret from the rogue from further dissemination or exploitation of the trade secret. The Court also has a broad discretion to craft an appropriate remedy to compensate the trade-secret owner for the wrong. If the action is brought before the trade secret is broadly disseminated, the trade secret may be reinstated and enforceable in the future. If the owner of the secret acts too slowly and the dissemination of the trade secret becomes too broad, the trade secret may be lost forever.
Adopting the use of trade secrets to protect know-how in the cannabis business does suffer from the fragility of the right itself. One disclosure, however inadvertent, can destroy the protection. In addition, a trade secret will not protect a company from a competitor who independently derives the know-how. Further, theft of the trade secret can be difficult to spot because, by its nature, the trade secret is exploited within the walls of the competitor company and is not evident in the marketed product. The owner of the secret will need to watch its competitors for telltale shifts in business direction and product offerings, particularly when those competitors hire the ex-employees of the owner of the trade secret. It is typical for owners of trade secrets to be vigilant in their market surveillance and to engage private investigators when they suspect a trade secret has been stolen.
Editor’s Note: In part 2 of this series, which will be published next week, Richard Naiberg will take a closer look at patents and how business can protect new and inventive technology in Canada’s cannabis industry. Stay tuned for more!
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.