First Cannabis-Related Patent Makes its Way through the Federal Courts: What it Teaches, and What it Does Not

May 02, 2019
Post by Tina G. Yin Sowatzke, Pharm.D.

In the past 25 years, there has been substantial growth surrounding the developments within the cannabis industry, particularly involving intellectual property protections. With legalization of cannabis gaining traction across the United States, any court guidance can provide a foundation for those seeking patent protection.

Opportunely, on April 17, 2019, The District Court for the District of Colorado adjudicated the first cannabis-related patent to make its way through a federal court system. This patent infringement suit was United Cannabis Corp. (“UCANN”) v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc, providing the first 35 U.S.C. §101 patentable subject matter challenge over cannabis formulations.

The patent at issue—U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911 issued to UCANN—claims “[a] liquid cannabinoid formulation, wherein at least 95% of the total cannabinoids is [tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), or a combination thereof]”. Pure Hemp alleged the claims were directed to an unpatentable natural phenomenon. In response, UCANN argued the contrary, stating they claimed “human-modified liquid formulations that require[d] converting solid cannabinoids into a different state with markedly different physiological characteristics”.

Ultimately, the Court was persuaded by UCANN’s argument, finding Pure Hemp failed to establish that a liquified formulation of cannabinoid, at the concentrations specified in the ‘911 patent, could occur in liquid form in nature. However, although the patent survived a §101 challenge, the judge explicitly stated he found reason to question the novelty and obviousness of the patent. Therefore, although the case was a win for the cannabis patent holder, it provides no promise for overall patentability of cannabis-related patents.  

Consequently, the case only provides a starting framework for how cannabis-related patents may be adjudicated on §101 grounds. Undoubtedly, additional cases surrounding cannabis-related patents will be closely observed as interest in this technology area rises in a growing cannabis industry.

Tina G. Yin-Sowatzke, Pharm.D. is an Associate Attorney in the MVS Biotechnology & Chemical Practice Group. To learn more, visit our MVS website, or contact Tina directly via email.

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.