Tag Archives: canadian

aurora logo

Aurora Cannabis Burnishes Its Medical and Recreational Game

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
aurora logo

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

CEO Cam Battley at a conference in Frankfurt
CEO Cam Battley at a conference in Frankfurt

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).aurora logo

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.

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 6

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the sixth and final 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 raised the issue of plant breeders’ rights and Part 4 discussed trademarks and protecting brand identity. Part 5 took a detailed look at copyright laws for cannabis companies and how they can protect works of creative expression.  

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 rnaiberg@goodmans.ca 

Summary of Practical Considerations For Cannabis Producers

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 rnaiberg@goodmans.ca

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 5

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the fifth 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 raised the issue of plant breeders’ rights and Part 4 discussed trademarks and protecting brand identity. Part 5, below, will detail copyright laws for cannabis companies and how they can protect works of creative expression.

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.

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 4

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 raised the issue of plant breeders’ rights and in Part 4, below, Naiberg discusses trademarks and how cannabis businesses should go about protecting their brand identity in Canada.


Trademarks: Protections For Brands And Goodwill

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!

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

Focus on Canopy Growth: International Pioneer On A Global Mission

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments
Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

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.

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logoSo 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.

International Aspirations

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.

Controversies

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.

The company has also been on the forefront of the banking and financing regulatory problems that have plagued the industry (so far successfully).

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!

Marguerite Arnold

Canadian Regulatory Authorities Struggling To Define Rules

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
Marguerite Arnold

Now that Canada finally has a date for the recreational market start, the federal government, provinces and other regulatory authorities are beginning to issue guidelines and rules that are going to define the early days of the recreational industry.

These include regulations on retail trade, medical sales and use. However this is precisely where the confusion is growing.

The Government Will Continue To Run The Medical Cannabis System

In a move to protect patients, Health Canada has announced that it will continue to run the medical part of the market for at least the next five years. In good news for medical users, this announcement was made against calls from the Canadian Medical Association for the medical infrastructure developed on Canada’s path to recreational reform to be phased out. The reason, according to the CMA? Many doctors feel uncomfortable prescribing the drug because of a lack of research and a general lack of understanding about dosing.

Both patients and advocates have expressed support for continuing the medical system. This includes organizations like the Canadian Nurses Association who fear that if a focus is taken off of medical use, producers will ignore this part of the market to focus only on recreational sales.

In the future, after legalization, Health Canada will also continue to support more research and trials.

Provinces Are Setting Their Own Rules For Recreational Sales

Despite early statements, the recreational market is still in the throes of market creation and regulation. The laws are also changing in progress, a situation one regulator has described as building an airplane as it hurtles down the runway for take-off.

Athletes in Canada are still banned from using any kind of cannabis.For example, Ontario, the largest provincial market, is also delaying private sector sales in retail shops until next year. It is also moving away from a government-run dispensary model. Government sales will begin in October, but private dispensaries will have to wait until next April to open their doors (and existing operations will have to close their doors while they apply for licenses). This is also a reversal of the regional government’s position that it would only allow government-controlled shops to sell recreational cannabis.

But perhaps the largest unknown in both national and provincial policy outside of retail brick and mortars is in the area of online sales. A major fight is now brewing in many places where the established industry is now siding with the government about unregistered dispensaries (see Ontario) and established if not registered producers are competing directly with the government not only on main street but online as well.recreational users are beginning to sound alarms that they do not want the government to have so much personal information about them

Retailers with a web presence operating in a grey space will continue to pose a significant challenge to the online system now being implemented by the government for two reasons. Product availability (which will be far more limited on the government-run sites) and privacy.

Beyond the lack of diverse products and strains to be initially offered via the online government portals, recreational users are beginning to sound alarms that they do not want the government to have so much personal information about them – and point specifically to the differences in the regulated alcohol industry vs. the new regulations for the recreational cannabis market.

Beyond Market Rules, There Are Other Guidelines Coming

The Canadian military has now issued guidelines for active duty personnel and cannabis. It cannot ban it from soldiers entirely of course, and as it stands, the situation will be ripe for misunderstandings. For example, soldiers are prohibited from consuming cannabis 8 hours before any kind of duty, 24 hours before the operation of any kind of vehicle or weapon and 28 days before parachuting or serving on a military aircraft.

The only problem, of course, is being able to enforce the same. Cannabinoids, notably THC, can stay in the body for up to 30 days for casual users long after the high is over.

Athletes in Canada are still banned from using any kind of cannabis. The reason? They are subject to the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP) under which the use of cannabis will still be prohibited.

That said, the Canadian Hockey League is reportedly now examining how to revise how it addresses the issue of medical use.

A Province-By-Province Look At Recreational Cannabis In Canada

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

Federal recreational reform is coming to Canada next month, the second country after Uruguay to take the plunge. For the first time in almost a century, in other words, cannabis is now about to be legal again.

The federal government will license and regulate the industry. However each province and territory (analogous to American states) will set the rules on distribution and sales. As a result, there is quite a bit of difference across the country with implications both for licensed producers (LPs) and consumers.

A quick guide to the general Canadian regulations broken down by Province.

Who Can Buy, Sell and Grow?

With two exceptions, the legal age of consent is 19, home growing of up to 4 plants is allowed across many provinces (with only Quebec, Manitoba and Nunavut banning the practice), and rules vary by province on both public and private consumption.

However what the industry is really looking at right now is where private enterprise will be allowed to flourish at the retail end of the industry. Private retailers will be allowed to operate in 7 provinces and territories where they will compete with government run outlets. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and the Yukon, consumers will be required to shop in only government-run establishments.

Nunavut, with no licensed producers, will allow online sales only, even in a recreational market. This gives Tilray an instant advantage with their established online presence not only from the company website, but Leafly.However, the two largest provinces are also where the competition will be most intense nationally.

Power Provinces

One of the most interesting statistics to look at is mapping this information to the number (and size) of licensed producers in each province. For example, Ontario currently clocks in at 59 producers, British Columbia at 23, Quebec at 8 and Alberta at 6, while the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have none. Of these, Ontario and Quebec will not allow producers to sell direct to private establishments but rather mandate sales via government-run dispensaries.

Ontario is slated to become the largest of all provincial markets in the country with Quebec coming in second.

However, the two largest provinces are also where the competition will be most intense nationally.

Where The Big Dogs Lie

Even these statistics do not tell the entire story. The biggest producers (especially those engaged in international rather than just domestic production and distribution) are scattered all over the map. For example, Tilray is in British Columbia. This gives the company the unprecedented ability, via its online portal and information website, Leafly, to engage in direct sales to both patients (via online sales) and recreational users from its home base.

How this will shape regional sales figures once the rec market actually starts is uncharted territory.Aurora is in a similar situation as it is situated in Alberta.

Canopy is headquartered in Ontario, but has grow sites across the country, giving it wide market access, and has just been picked as one of four companies to begin recreational sales in Manitoba.

Aphria and MedReleaf headquarters are also both located in Ontario. But it is not necessarily where such producers are located which will determine market access. Ontario has opened the door to suppliers of all sizes, across the country.

Quebec, in contrast, has signed deals with Canopy, Aphria, Aurora, Tilray, MedReleaf and Hydropothecary with both Aurora and Hydropothecary expected to have large home-court advantage when it comes to branding. MYM Nutraceuticals, with a huge greenhouse in Weedon, Quebec, has now also signed the largest deal in Quebec (as of June). The company represents one of Canada’s largest greenhouses.Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

Prince Edward Island and Brunswick have followed a bit of a hybrid model, signing deals with both small local players and the larger national companies.

The interesting twist to the Canadian medical market (that does not exist in Europe for example) is that all licensed producers are allowed to sell directly to patients online. How this will shape regional sales figures once the rec market actually starts is uncharted territory.

Ontario, with 40% of the country’s population and home to more than half of Canada’s registered producers, is slated to become the country’s largest recreational market.

British Columbia, in contrast, is developing as a place where mom and pops can still thrive.

Epidiolex-GW

GW Pharma’s Enormous Price for Epidiolex

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment
Epidiolex-GW

In a fascinating early August conference call with Seeking Alpha, British-based GW Pharmaceuticals finally revealed their retail price point for CBD-based drug, Epidiolex, as it goes into distribution in the U.S.

The drug is designed for the treatment of certain kinds of childhood epilepsy – although not all kinds. Also notable of course, is that GW Pharma’s “other” drug for treatment of resistant epilepsy failed in late stage trials in Eastern Europe earlier this year. It also knocked off 5% of the price of the company’s stock.The company is estimating it has a potential patient pool of between 25,000- 30,000 patients in the U.S.

British Advocacy Over Access And Pricing

The ineffectiveness of GW Pharma’s drugs for many patients (along with the cost charged for them) was responsible for pre-empting the entire access discussion in the UK this year. The mother of an epileptic British child tried to import a personal store of cannabis oil (produced by Canadian LP Tilray) only to have it confiscated at the airport this summer. Her son ended up in the hospital shortly thereafter.

The national uproar this caused pushed forward the country’s new medical cannabis policy– indeed drug rescheduling is due to go into effect in October. Conveniently, right as Epidiolex goes on sale in the U.S. (where cannabis remains a Schedule I drug).

The company is estimating it has a potential patient pool of between 25,000- 30,000 patients in the U.S.

Price Tags and Politics

What is the price of Epidiolex? $32,500 per patient, per year. If that sounds high, the company insists it is pricing the drug to be “in line” with other drugs for this segment of the market.

The majority of this cost will not be picked up by private health insurers but rather the federal governmentActually, according to industry analysis, this is about 70% more than the price of one comparable drug (Onfi), and slightly more expensive than Banzel, the two competing (non-cannabinoid based) medications now available in the U.S. for this market.

Here is the other (widely unreported) kicker. The majority of this cost will not be picked up by private health insurers but rather the federal government, which is also not negotiating with GW Pharma about that high price  (unlike for example what is going on in Europe and the German bid).

Why the difference?

Two reasons. The first is that Epidiolex has obtained “orphan drug” status (a medication for a disease that affects fewer than 200,000 patients in the U.S.) The second is that the majority of the insurance that will be picking up this tab is Medicaid. The patient pool will be unable to afford this. As a result, the bulk of the money will remit not from private insurance companies but rather federal taxpayers. And, unlike in say, Germany, none of this is pre-negotiated in bulk.

Epidiolex-GW
What is the price of Epidiolex? $32,500 per patient, per year.

Co-payments are expected to range from $5 to $200 per month per patient after insurance (read: the government) picks up the tab. This essentially means that the company plans to base participation at first at least on a sliding scale, highly subsidized by a government that has yet to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I in the U.S.

Creating, in other words, a new monopoly position for GW Pharmaceuticals in North America.

A Hypocrisy Both Patients And The Industry Should Fight

The sordid, underhanded politicking that has created this canna monster is hardly surprising given the current political environment in both the U.S. and the U.K. right now. The people who benefit the most from this development are not patients, or even everyday shareholders, not to mention the burgeoning legitimate North American cannabis industry, but in fact highly placed politicians (like British Prime Minister Theresa May). Philip May, the PM’s husband’s firm is the majority shareholder in GW Pharma. Her former drugs minister (with a strong stand against medical cannabis) is married to the managing director of British Sugar, the company that grows GW Pharma’s cannabis stock domestically.

So far, despite a domestic outcry over this in the UK (including rescheduling), there has been no political backlash in the United States over this announcement. Why not?

Look To Europe For A More Competitive Medical Market

This kind of pricing strategy is also a complete no go in just about every other market – including medical-only markets where GW Pharma already has a footprint.

For example, German health insurers are already complaining about this kind of pricing strategy for cannabis (see the Cannabis Report from one of the country’s largest insurers TK – out earlier this year). And this in an environment where the government, in fact, does negotiate a bulk rate for most of the drugs in the market. Currently most German cannabis patients are being given dronabinol, a synthetic form of THC which costs far less.

GW logo-2On top of this, there are also moves afoot by the German government to begin to bring the costs of medical cannabis and medicines down, dramatically. And this too will impact the market – not only in Europe, but hopefully spark a debate in every country where prices are also too high.

The currently pending German cultivation bid for medical cannabis has already set an informal “reference” price of at most 7 euros a gram (and probably will see bid competitors come in at under half that). In other words, the government wholesale price of raw, unprocessed cannabis flower if not lightly processed cannabis oil is expected to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3-4 euros per gram come early next year. If not, as some expect, potentially even lower than that.

Processed Cannabis Medicine vs. Whole Plant Treatment

The debate that is really raging, beyond pricing, is whether unprocessed cannabis and cannabis oil is actually “medicine.” At the moment, the status quo in the U.S. is that it is not.

GW Pharmaceuticals, in other words, a British company importing a CBD-based derivative, is the only real “medical cannabis” company in the country, per the FDA. Everyone else, at least according to this logic, is placed in the “recreational camp.” And further, hampered still, with a lack of rescheduling, that affects everyone.

If that is not an organizing issue for the American cannabis industry, still struggling with the many issues inherent in the status quo (from insurance coverage and banking to national distribution across state lines) leading up to the midterms, nothing will be.

european union states

International Summer Cannabis Roundup

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
european union states

As August comes to a close, it is clear that it has been one busy quarter for market development – all over the place. Developments in the UK and Germany in particular, however, have been dramatic. In turn, this is also starting to bring other countries online – even as potential producers move in on the market and before real domestic medical reform has occurred (in countries ranging from Turkey to Spain).

And, say no more, Canada finally announced its “due date” in October.

How all three markets will move forward is also very interesting. They are all interrelated at this point, and even more intriguing, increasingly in synch.

This trend is also one advocates should take note of to push forward on further legislative and access issues going forward.

The EU looks poised to hop on the legalization train

In the future, no matter what happens with Brexit, developments in both the UK and Germany will continue to push the conversation forward in the EU, a region that is now the world’s most strategic (and globally accessible) cannabis market. Advocates, particularly in Canada and the U.S. right now, can also do much to support them.

Germany

Events here, while they may seem “slow” to outsiders, are in fact progressing – and as Cannabis Industry Journal has been reporting – quite fast even if the developments haven’t been (initially at least) quite as public. As this ‘zine wrote, breaking the news in July, the Federal German Drugs and Medical Devices Agency (BfArM) quietly posted the revised bid in July on a European tender site after refusing to confirm that it had sent out (undated) cancellation letters to previous hopefuls.  Applicants for the new tender have until October 22 to respond. It is expected, given the new focus on “coalitions” that there will be many more applicants from global teams.

Even more interesting is the informal “reference price” that BfArM is appearing to set for bid respondents (7 euros per gram) and the impact of that on all pricing going forward across the continent.

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

Within a week, it also emerged that the Deutsche Borse, the organization that regulates the German stock exchanges, and working via its third party clearing arm, refused to clear any trades of any publically listed North American cannabis company that are also listed in Germany. This is an interesting development for sure – particularly now. How it will impact the biggest companies (read publicly listed Canadian LPs) is unclear, particularly because they can now raise capital via global capital markets – including the U.S.

Earlier in the summer, one of the largest public or “statutory” health insurance companies in Germany issued the “Cannabis Report.” It showed that cannabis has now moved out of “orphan drug territory” in Germany, and over 15,000 patients are now prescribed the drug. That said, over 35% of all claims are still being rejected. Most patients at this point, are also women older than 40.

The UK

It seems to be less than coincidence that the other big mover this quarter (and in fact most of the year) has been the UK. These two countries are linked by history and trade more than any other in Europe.

Epidiolex-GWAs of October, the country will not only reschedule cannabinoid-derived medicine to a Schedule II drug, but also allow more patients to access it. It is unclear how fast reform will come to a country in the throes of Brexit drama, but it is clear that this discussion is now finally on the table. What is also intriguing about this development is how far and fast this will open the door for other firms to compete, finally, with the monopoly enjoyed by GW Pharmaceuticals in the British Islands since 1998.

In one of the quarter’s biggest coups that stockholders loved but left the domestic industry with few illusions about the fight ahead, GW Pharmaceuticals also announced that it had managed (ahead of all U.S.-based producers and firms and even rescheduling in the U.S.) to gain U.S. federal government approval to import a CBD-based epilepsy drug (Epidiolex) into the United States from the UK and thus gain national distribution.

Canada

While it was more inevitable (and planned for) than developments in Euro markets, Canada also moved forward this quarter. There is now a set date for a recreational market start.

What is even more interesting is that the next formal “steps” in all three markets are now timed to coincide within weeks of each other in October this year.

Canadian producers of course are in the leading position to enter both German and British markets. Further their production centers now springing up all over Europe are supplying both their source markets and will be available for international distribution.