United Hashish Company v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., Docket No. 22-01363 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
This case continues to be pending earlier than the Federal Circuit, however I discovered it fascinating sufficient for a preview.
United Hashish holds a broad marijuana patent – US9730911 – with claims directed to a liquid cannabinoid having 95% of both THC or CBD.
5. A liquid cannabinoid formulation, whereby at the least 95% of the whole cannabinoids is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
10. A liquid cannabinoid formulation, whereby at the least 95% of the whole cannabinoids is cannabidiol (CBD).
In 2018, United Hashish sued Pure Hemp for patent infringement and Pure Hemp responded with a Walker-Course of antitrust counterclaim for asserting a patent recognized to be invalid. The defendant additionally argued the patent must be held unenforceable on account of inequitable conduct throughout prosecution.
The inequitable conduct declare was primarily based upon a failure to supply materials references to the USPTO as required beneath 37 CFR 1.56. Specifically, the Cooley LLP prosecuting lawyer admitted to copying materials from prior artwork into each the Summary and the Detailed Description of the patent specification; however didn’t cite the reference throughout the patent doc or disclose that reference to the USPTO for consideration. Though not similar, the reference (Whittle – U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0033280) apparently disclosed a liquid with 88.9% CBD or 95% CBD+THC. So, fairly near what was claimed. In deposition, the prosecuting lawyer apparently defined that the copying was carried out to hurry the method and save time – and is a advisable frequent follow. It additionally seems that the identical legislation agency – Cooley – represents GW-Pharma (the proprietor of the Whittle prior artwork) in patent prosecution. And, Cooley attorneys had argued to the USPTO that GW Pharma invented a liquid formulation with 95% purity CBD. So, within the phrases of
The litigation floor to a halt within the midst of discovery when United Hashish filed for chapter. However, the chapter case was finally dismissed primarily based upon the unlawful nature of the enterprise enterprise (unlawful on the Federal stage). At that time United Hashish determined to drop its infringement case. The events collectively agreed that the patentee would dismiss its claims with prejudice, whereas the defendant dismissed its counterclaims with out prejudice.
Though the deserves had been resolved, the accused infringer was a bit upset for having to litigate the pointless lawsuit, and consequently filed a movement searching for lawyer charges beneath 35 U.S.C. 285. Part 285 permits the district court docket discretion to award cheap lawyer charges to the prevailing social gathering in “distinctive instances.” In a terse opinion, the district court docket denied the charges movement: discovering (1) the defendant was not the prevailing social gathering due to the jointly-agreed dismissal and (2) the information of the case weren’t proven to be “distinctive” for the reason that dismissal occurred earlier than the information had been decided.
This case is now on enchantment earlier than the Federal Circuit. The patentee has admitted that the district court docket erred in its prevailing social gathering evaluation, however argued that the district court docket was right to seek out that the case was not distinctive. The appellant argues as an alternative that the copying into the vital parts of the appliance: detailed description of the invention and summary create an inference of each materiality and intent enough for an distinctive case discovering. For its half, the district court docket solely supplied a cursory evaluation of those points with out delving into any of the proof offered. The briefing additionally argues that “Cooley attorneys even have a coverage of withholding references till after the primary workplace motion, in direct contravention of patent workplace steerage.” Nonetheless, on this case, the references had been by no means submitted previous to issuance. The temporary goes-on to comment that “in educational circles, it’s known as plagiarism.” And, even with out rising to the Therasense stage of inequitable conduct, must be seen as creating an distinctive case.
James Gourley from Carstens & Cahoon argued on behalf of the defendant-appellant. (Temporary). Cooley’s Orion Armon argued on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellee. (Temporary).
What do you suppose: Do the information as said right here create an distinctive case for the accused infringer?