We've written previously about the basics of cannabis patents, which are a substantial area of growth within the cannabis industry, and we've written extensively about cannabis trademark litigation (see some of our posts here, here, and here), which has been prolific in the last couple of years, but we've seen very little in the way of cannabis-related patent litigation. This is beginning to change.
Last month,
The scope of the '632 Patent is much broader than a previous patent issued to Canopy in 2014, and the issuance of overly broad patents has been an issue of great concern to the cannabis industry for quite some time now. To the extent that the extraction process covered by the '632 Patent is widely used throughout the industry, Canopy's enforcement of its patent rights could have huge implications. The '632 Patent is set to expire in about a year and a half, but could allow Canopy to profit off of patent litigation like this case against
In an interview with
It really could be a major threat to the extraction industry. Once they know about [the patent], companies might be considered to be willfully infringing the patent, which can potentially triple damages if they are sued . Although there are steps that can be taken to reduce infringement liability risks, CO2 extractors may essentially have this anvil hanging over their head as the business continues on-at least until the patent expires or someone succeeds in knocking it out.
And knocking it out is what we expect
The lawsuit asserts that GW manufactures CBD-the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Epidiolex, GW's leading cannabinoid product-using
According to the complaint filed by Canopy:
GW is aware, or should be aware, that the extraction process it uses to manufacture Epidiolex infringes the claims of the '632 Patent. Although the '632 Patent recently issued, on information and belief, GW has been monitoring the '632 Patent family for over fourteen years. In
Based on the foregoing, Canopy alleges that
[u]pon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court . the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.
Note that according to the complaint, "GW reported approximately
The implications of this lawsuit may have a profound effect on the cannabis industry as a whole, and we will be following its progress closely.
Cannabis Patent Litigation Update: Canopy Growth Sues GW Pharma
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Ms
Suite 1200
WA 98101
URL: www.harrisbricken.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source