cannabis patent litigationWe have been intently monitoring the first ever cannabis patent infringement situation, among plaintiff United Cannabis Corporation (“UCANN”) and defendant Pure Hemp Collective, Inc. (“Pure Hemp”). UCANN owns the “911 Patent,” which usually handles liquid cannabinol formulations of a purified CBD and/or THC increased than ninety five%. For the previous 12 months, UCANN has fought to safe a everlasting injunction versus Pure Hemp from infringing on its patent, as properly as damages and attorneys’ service fees. For our prior protection, see  belowhere and listed here.

Matters have not been heading nicely for Pure Hemp, and it just lately struck out all over again. Final thirty day period, Pure Hemp had filed a Motion for Leave to Temporary the Invalidity of the Certificate of Correction for the 911 Patent. UCANN filed a Response in Opposition on Might three, 2019 and Pure Hemp filed its Reply on Might 22, 2019. The Justice of the peace Decide, Nina Y. Wang, issued her Purchase denying Pure Hemp’s Movement for Leave the same day.

As suitable here, recall in our preceding post that in Pure Hemp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “MPSJ”), Pure Hemp had claimed that Claim 31 of the 911 Patent is invalid because “it is a many dependent declare that improperly relies upon on a further multiple dependent claim.” Fundamentally, Pure Hemp had argued that Assert 31 of the 911 Patent incorrectly handles: “The formulation of any one particular of the continuing claims, whereby the formulation is infused in a medium chain triglyceride (MCT).” In reaction to this argument, UCANN experienced filed a Motion to Proper Assert 313 of the 911 Patent, looking for to modify Claim 31 by replacing “proceeding claims” with “preceding statements,” arguing that the former design is simply an mistake the courtroom may perhaps appropriate.

The Court denied UCANN’s Motion to Right on February 19, 2019, acquiring that the mistake, if any, would be additional correctly addressed by proceedings in advance of the USPTO. Three times later, UCANN did file a Ask for for Certificate of Correction with the USPTO, indicating it experienced designed an “inadvertent typographical error” and arguing that the correction did not “involve new matter or need reexamination.”

“The typical for issuing a certificate of correction is laid out in 35 U.S.C. 255:Any time a blunder of a clerical or typographical mother nature, or of minimal character, which was not the fault of the Patent and Trademark Business office, seems in a patent and a displaying has been created that such error transpired in great religion, the Director may, on payment of the required payment, challenge a certificate of correction, if the correction does not entail this kind of variations in the patent as would represent new subject or would involve reexamination. Such patent, jointly with the certification, shall have the exact same effect and operation in legislation on the trial of actions for triggers thereafter arising as if the very same had been originally issued in such corrected sort.”

On April seventeen, 2019, UCANN submitted a see indicating that the USPTO experienced agreed and issued a Certification of Correction on April nine, 2019, amending “proceeding” to “preceding” in Assert 31 of the 911 Patent. This was somewhat brief, cost-effective way that resulted in a massive win for UCANN – that exact day, Decide Martinez denied Defendant’s MPSJ. In his Get, Judge Martinez pointed out that UCANN had attained the good Certification of Correction and for that reason, Pure Hemp’s argument that Assert 31 was invalid since it did not contain a reference to a preceding declare was moot.

Pure Hemp’s latest Motion for Go away argued that the Certificate of Correction is a broadening modification, which is not right, and that it did not have the possibility to quick the issue as aspect of its MPSJ because of to the timing of the issuance of the Certification. Pure Hemp also argued that the issuance of regardless of whether the Certificate of Correction is a broadening amendment is an difficulty of claim development, and that it should be permitted to temporary the concern in conjunction with the same.

In response, UCANN manufactured two straightforward arguments: (one) Pure Hemp’s motion violates the restrictions on the range of motions for summary judgment a party may possibly file (in this circumstance, a single), and (two) the Patent Nearby Principles limit assert design briefing to resolving difficulties of assert interpretation. Decide Wang agreed and denied Pure Hemp’s Movement for Depart in its entirety. This just goes to display: sometimes, really intricate concerns are fixed on really uncomplicated procedural grounds.

Now that the validity of Declare 31 has been put to rest, the events have proceeded to the assert construction stage of all patent litigation (the issue of a long term submit!).  It will unquestionably consist of more complex arguments, so keep tuned.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here