Tag: Federal

In The Weeds: Key Intellectual Property Takeaways For The Cannabis Industry

1. Patent Filings Are Rapidly Increasing

The number of patent filings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) directly correlates to the rise of cannabis legalization. According to Magic Number, a data analytics company, between 2017 and 2018 the PTO issued almost 250 cannabis-related patents—more than in the previous seven years combined. These filings cover a range of inventions, including medical treatments and pharmaceutical compositions, cultivation techniques, vaporizers, and cannabis-infused products like toothpaste, coffee beans, and alcoholic drinks. With this uptick in patent filings, the volume of cannabis-specific prior art is on the rise as well. Those interested in obtaining patent protection in the cannabis industry should not fall behind their peers nor wait until the prior art field has fully developed. Early filing is critical.

2. Cannabis is Still Illegal Under Federal Law

Despite the growing number of patent filings, it is important to recognize that processing and distributing cannabis is still illegal under the federal Controlled Substance Act. Recent scholarly articles have argued that federal courts should not entertain most cannabis patent infringement suits due to illegality. Nonetheless, some courts have allowed these cases to proceed on the merits. United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc. is the first trial involving a cannabis patent in federal court. Specifically, the patent in dispute relates to the extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials (e.g., liquid cannabinoid formula including THC). The plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit against a competitor maker of CBD products. In April 2019, a judge ruled in favor of United Cannabis Corporation by rejecting the argument that the plaintiff’s formulations are not patent eligible. Although the legal status of cannabis is not an issue in the case, it is important to remember that cannabis is not legalized at the federal level and that federal case law is still developing.

3. Design Patents can be a Valuable Component of an IP Portfolio

Design patents are a valuable form of protection in the cannabis space and are often a good alternative to utility protection. While 10 percent of patents issued overall are design patents, less than one percent of cannabis-related filings are designated as design patents. Design patents are quicker and cheaper to obtain; this may be desirable for fast-developing and/or cost-conscious companies and particularly for products having short life cycles. Design patents are particularly valuable for covering the ornamental aspects of well-known cannabis-related products, such as vaporizers, to deter wholesale copying. Business owners should consider the role design patents may play in protecting their products.

4. Trademark Filings are Similarly Increasing

Roughly 110 new cannabis-related federal trademark applications are filed each month since Congress approved the 2018 Farm Bill 11 months ago. Among other things, the Farm Bill removed “hemp” from the list of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. This removal created an avenue for federal trademark registrations covering certain goods and services derived from hemp that contain no more than 0.3 percent THC. However, all other cannabis related products are currently ineligible for trademark protection due to its illegality. Namely, trademark law requires that the goods in connection with a particular trademark must be lawfully sold or transferred in commerce. To provide some flexibility given the tension between state and federal law for cannabis, trademark applicants should file applications using broad wording for the goods and services, which can allow applicants to narrow as needed to obtain a trademark registration. To register a cannabis-related trademark at the federal level, the cannabis-related business should be prepared to argue that the goods or services associated with the mark are not illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, trademark registrations may be available in certain states for cannabis-related products and services. Although state registrations do not offer nation-wide protection, a company should consider filing for state trademark protection in conjunction with federal trademark flings. Companies should consider filing applications in states where cannabis is legalized.

5. IP Protection Strategy Beyond the United States

As of 2018, more than thirty countries have legalized cannabis, in one form or another, according to Marijuana Business Daily. The World Intellectual Property Organization notes that approximately 10,246 cannabis-related applications have been filed since 1978 under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, with 6,137 applications coming after 2008. Thus, the trends and recommendations above regarding domestic protection of cannabis are, likewise, relevant on the international stage. Likewise, companies should also consider foreign trademark filings in countries that have legalized cannabis. In particular, most foreign countries follow a first-to-file rule when it comes to trademarks. As a result, it is important to consider foreign trademark filings as early as possible.

Closing

With the drastic increase of cannabis-related patent and trademark applications, companies need to act quickly to protect their innovations in this rapidly growing industry. With cannabis-related patents, despite the uncertain legal landscape, early filings may be unexpectedly successful, given the infancy of the prior art field. With cannabis-related trademarks, companies should ensure that the goods or services associated with that trademark are not illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. Companies should also continue to monitor developments on a state-by-state and nation-by-nation basis. Given trends, it is expected that legalization will continue to expand to additional jurisdictions.

 

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Matthew S. Dicke, Sana Hakim, Kevin T. McCormick and Brittany Kaplan of K&L Gates.
For more in cannabis industry news, see the National Law Review Biotech, Food & Drug law page.

Mixed Results for Employers on Marijuana – Two Federal Courts Refuse to Find State Marijuana Laws Preempted by Federal Law

Two recent federal cases illustrate why employers – even federal contractors – must be cognizant of relevant state-law pronouncements regarding the use of marijuana (i.e., cannabis) by employees. While one case found in favor of the employer, and the other in favor of the employee, these decisions have emphasized that state law protections for users of medical marijuana are not preempted by federal laws such as the Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA). Employers must craft a thoughtful and considered approach to marijuana in the workplace, and in most cases should not take a zero-tolerance approach to marijuana.

Ninth Circuit Finds in Favor of Employer Who Discharged Employee for Positive Drug Test

In Carlson v. Charter Communication, LLC, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an employee who alleged discrimination under the Montana Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) because he was discharged for testing positive for marijuana use. The plaintiff, a medical marijuana cardholder under Montana state law, tested positive for THC (a cannabinoid) after an accident in a company-owned vehicle. His employer, a federal contractor required to comply with the DFWA, terminated his employment because the positive test result violated its employment policy.

The District Court of Montana held that the employer was within its rights to discharge the plaintiff because (1) the DFWA preempts the MMA on the issue of whether a federal contractor can employ a medical marijuana user; and (2) the MMA does not provide employment protections to medical marijuana cardholders. Indeed, the MMA specifically states that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana, and the Act does not permit a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination. The Ninth Circuit rejected this rationale. Because the MMA does not prevent employers from prohibiting employees from using marijuana and does not permit employees for suing for discrimination or wrongful termination, the Ninth Circuit held that the MMA does not preclude federal contractors from complying with the DFWA and thus found no conflict.

The plaintiff asserted that the provisions of the MMA exempting employers from accommodating registered users and prohibiting such users from bringing wrongful discharge or discrimination lawsuits against employers are unconstitutional and sought certification of the question to the Montana Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit rejected this request because, it determined, the Montana Supreme Court already decided the issue. The MMA and the specific sections challenged by the plaintiff appropriately balance Montana’s legitimate state interest in regulating access to a controlled substance while avoiding entanglement with federal law, which classifies the substance as illegal.

Plaintiff Wins Summary Judgment Against Employer That Rescinded Job Offer Due to Positive Test

If federal law does not preempt state law on the issue of marijuana, then in certain states – like Connecticut – employers will be more susceptible to discrimination claims from marijuana users. In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company, the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to a plaintiff-employee of Bride Brook Nursing & Rehabilitation Center who used medical marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and whose offer was rescinded for testing positive for THC during a post-offer drug screen. Plaintiff filed a discrimination claim under the Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (“PUMA”), which makes it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize, or threaten an employee “solely on the basis of such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.”

We covered a previous decision in this case, in which the court held that PUMA is not preempted by the federal Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). The decision was notable then for being the first federal decision to hold that the CSA does not preempt a state medical marijuana law’s anti-discrimination provision, a departure from a previous federal decision in New Mexico.

In this recent decision, the District Court again considered whether PUMA was preempted by federal law. In ruling for the Plaintiff, the court rejected Bride Brook’s argument that its practices fall within an exception to PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision because they are “required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding.” Bride Brook argued that in order to comply with DFWA, which requires federal contractors to make a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace, it could not hire plaintiff because of her failed pre-employment drug-test. The court was not persuaded, concluding that the DFWA does not require drug testing, nor does it prohibit federal contractors from employing people who use illegal drugs outside the workplace. The court noted that simply because Bride Brook’s zero-tolerance policy went beyond the requirements of the DFWA does not mean that hiring the plaintiff would violate the Act.

The court also rejected Bride Brook’s argument that the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) prohibits employers from hiring marijuana users because doing so would amount to defrauding the federal government. Because no federal law prohibits employers from hiring individuals who use medicinal marijuana outside of work, employers do not defraud the government by hiring those individuals.

Lastly, the court rejected the theory that PUMA only prohibits discrimination on the basis of one’s registered status and not the actual use of marijuana, as such a holding would undermine the very purpose for which the employee obtained the status.

What These Decisions Mean for Employers

These decisions are notable for the fact that the federal courts refused to find the state laws were preempted by federal law. Importantly, neither found that the DFWA preempts state law, which means that even federal contractors must be aware of and follow state law with respect to marijuana use by employees. Thus, in states in which employers may not discriminate against medical marijuana users – such as Connecticut – all employers must take care not to make adverse employment decisions based solely on off-duty marijuana use and, in certain states, must accommodate medical marijuana use. A majority of states and the District of Columbia now permit the use of medical marijuana; employers, including federal contractors, should be mindful of these statutes and consult with counsel to ensure their employment policies are compliant.

©2018 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

This post was written by Nathaniel M. Glasser ofEpstein Becker & Green, P.C.

War on Weed: AG Jeff Sessions Creates Reefer Madness

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has caused chaos in the marijuana industry and is forcing those who have made efforts to create legalized businesses in compliance with state laws to ponder whether their anticipated profits will go up in smoke. In a memo to all U.S. attorneys, Sessions rescinded Obama-era decrees that restrained prosecutors from enforcing federal drug laws in states that acted to legalize marijuana under their own laws. The decrees created an environment in which states felt they had the freedom to legalize marijuana without interference from federal authorities. Nonetheless, all aspects of the marijuana industry – for example, growing, manufacturing related products, distributing, advertising, and managing property used to grow, manufacture or distribute marijuana – have remained illegal. The updated guidance from Sessions now encourages federal prosecutors to resume enforcing these laws.

It is no coincidence that Sessions, a longtime opponent of the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, issued his guidance just days after California allowed recreational marijuana businesses to open their doors. Those who follow this issue know Sessions also has his sights set on enforcing federal drug laws against those engaged in the medical marijuana industry. Sessions requested Congress remove a budgetary provision currently prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using funds to “prevent certain states ‘from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana[.]’”[1]

This new guidance highlights the conflict that exists between federal law and the laws of state, local and tribal governments that have seemingly legalized marijuana both recreationally and medically. This should be cause for concern for those involved in the marijuana industry. Federal drug laws prevail over the comparable laws of states, cities and tribal communities; so, compliance with those laws is not a defense to the violation of federal laws prohibiting every aspect of the fast-growing marijuana industry. A key factor for its future is what happens to the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, also known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the DOJ from spending federal funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The law will expire on January 19 absent its annual re-authorization from Congress.

Ultimately, the manner in which the guidance from Sessions will be implemented by federal prosecutors around the country is uncertain. However, now that the prosecutors have the freedom and the instruction to enforce the drug laws against the marijuana industry, it is likely they will flex their muscles. This will result in substantially adverse legal and economic consequences for the businesses and individuals engaged in that industry. If you are concerned about the impact this new guidance may have on you, your business or an investment of yours, please contact your Dinsmore attorney. We have many attorneys experienced in this area, including multiple former federal prosecutors, who can assist you with your needs and concerns.

[1] Jeff Sessions’ letter regarding Department of Justice Appropriations is available at https://www.scribd.com/document/351079834/Sessions-Asks-Congress-To-Undo-Medical-Marijuana-Protections.

 

© 2017 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Robert G. Marasco and Marisa K. Fenn of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

U.S., Mexican, and Canadian Officials Conclude First Round of NAFTA Modernization Talks

On August 20, trade officials from the United States, Mexico, and Canada concluded the first round of negotiations to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In a joint statement released following five days of talks, trade officials reiterated their commitment to updating the deal, continuing domestic consultations, and working on draft text. They also pledged their commitment to a comprehensive and accelerated negotiation process to set 21st Century standards and to benefit the citizens of North America.

Their agenda covered a wide range of existing and new NAFTA chapters, including: updating the Rules of Origin, adding and amending trade remedies provisions, addressing transparency, combatting corruption, increasing intellectual property protections, and addressing issues facing financial services and investment. The U.S. reportedly tabled roughly 10 proposals updating existing chapters or proposing new ones. Officials expect the modernized NAFTA deal will include a total of 30 chapters (the current agreement is comprised of 22 chapters and seven annexes).

The NAFTA negotiating teams are being led by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for the Western Hemisphere John Melle, veteran Canadian trade expert Steve Verheul, and Director of the Embassy of Mexico’s Trade and NAFTA Office Kenneth Smith Ramos. In addition to negotiators, a number of Canadian and Mexican stakeholders – including eight members of the Mexican Senate and 150 representatives of Mexico’s private sector – were present on the margins of the talks. However, U.S. negotiators have acknowledged that their accelerated schedule leaves little time for formal business stakeholders to be included in events like those organized during the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks.

Negotiators are expected to head to Mexico City for the second round of talks from September 1 to 5, and to Canada for their third round in late September (reportedly September 23-27). Negotiators will continue at this rapid pace, moving back to United States in October and planning additional rounds through the end of the year. The NAFTA parties hope to finish talks by the end of 2017 or early 2018, ahead of Mexico’s July 2018 presidential elections.

This post was written by Mayte Gutierrez and Ludmilla L. Savelieff of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP © Copyright 2017
For more legal analysis go to The National Law Review

This (Retractable) Needle Is Going to Sting a Bit: Next Chapter in the Adventures of Post-Phillips Claim Construction

Posted on July 31, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by David M. Beckwith and Paul Devinsky of McDermott Will & Emery regarding how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the claim construction tension between broadly drafted claims and the written description contained in the patent specification:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the claim construction tension between broadly drafted claims, and the written description contained in the patent specification, revealing a deep split among the panel members. Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson Co., Case No. 07-CV-0250 (Fed. Cir,. July 8, 2011) (Lourie, J.) (Plager, J., concurring) (Rader, J. dissenting-in-part).

Retractable Technologies (RT) sued Becton Dickenson (BD) for infringing three patents related to syringes with retractable needle technology. Following an adverse jury verdict, BD appealed on multiple grounds, including a challenge to the claim construction of the term “body,” which the district court had determined could include a multi-part structure.

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, specifically rejecting the district court’s broad claim construction the term “body.”  BD argued that the district court erred in ruling the syringe “body” is not limited to a one-piece structure, noting the specifications describes “the invention” as including a one-piece body.  In addition, the background section of the patent criticized prior art syringes that contain a two-piece body.  Finally, BD argued that claim differentiation does not apply in light of the written description’s limiting statements concerning the nature of the invention and the structure of the syringe body.

RT responded that the ordinary meaning of the term “body” should apply and is not limited to a one-piece body.  RT also argued application of the claim differentiation canon based on a dependent claim that included the limitation of a one-piece body.

Judge Lourie wrote for the majority of the panel, agreeing with BD that the claim term “body” is limited to a one-piece structure as described in the specifications. The majority noted that the specification indicates what was invented, holding that the claim language should not be interpreted to extend the invention beyond that set forth in the written description.  The majority also rejected RT’s claim differentiation argument as “weak” in the face of the language of the specification.  The majority noted that no dependent claim recited a non-one piece structure and concluded that the language of the specification that criticized two-piece structures was of greater significance than the dependent claim to a one-piece body.

Judge Plager, concurring, warned courts to turn a deaf ear to the siren song of giving claims wide scope.  In Judge Plager’s opinion, the written description requirement imposes an obligation to make full disclosure of what is actually invented and to claim that and nothing more.  As Judge Plager noted, “I have written elsewhere about the curse of indefinite and ambiguous claims, divorced from the written description, that we are regularly are asked to construe, and the need for more stringent rules to control the curse.”

In dissent, Judge Rader focused on the ordinary meaning of the term “body” and explained that since there was no special meaning provided by the patent specification to supplant the ordinary meaning of the term “body,” it was error to limit the construction to only a one-piece structure.  Rader wrote,  “In this case, neither party contends that ‘body’ has a special, technical meaning in the field of art, and thus claim construction requires ‘little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly used words.’”

Practice Note:  This decision reflects a fundamental division within the Federal Circuit on the importance of the written description as a limitation on claim scope, as compared to the view that the claim language itself should be of paramount importance in construction. Until there is either some post-Phillips en bancclarification or Supreme Court consideration of the issue, the outcome of contested constructions in such a circumstance may demand on the panel hearing the appeal.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

Unsecured Creditors Beware! The Western District of Texas Bankruptcy Court Declares an Unsecured Creditor Cannot Have Its Cake (Unsecured Claim) and Eat It Too (Post-Petition Legal Fees)

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Evan D. Flaschen, Renée M. Dailey, Mark E. Dendinger of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP about the issue of whether an unsecured creditor can recover post-petition legal fees under the Bankruptcy Code:

Bankruptcy courts have long debated the issue of whether an unsecured creditor can recover post-petition legal fees under the Bankruptcy Code. In the recent decision of In re Seda France, Inc. (located here(opens in a new window)), Justice Craig A. Gargotta of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas denied an unsecured creditor’s claim for post-petition fees. In doing so, the Court has once again left the unsecured creditor with a bad taste in its mouth by declaring that an unsecured creditor seeking post-petition fees is asking permission to have its cake (a claim for principal, interest and pre-petition legal fees under applicable loan documents) and eat it too (a claim for post-petition legal fees).

Proponents of the view that an unsecured creditor cannot recover post-petition legal fees point to section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows as part of a creditor’s secured claim the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the post-petition period, and note the Bankruptcy Code is silent on anunsecured creditor’s right to post-petition legal fees. Essentially, the argument is since Congress provided for post-petition fees for secured creditors, it could have explicitly provided for post-petition fees for unsecured creditors but chose not to. Proponents of the alternative view cite the Second Circuit decision United Merchants and its progeny, where those courts refused to read the plain language of section 506(b) as a limitation on an unsecured creditor’s claim for recovery of post-petition legal expenses. The theory is that while the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly permit the recovery of an unsecured creditor’s claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees, it does not expressly exclude them either. The basic tenant is that if Congress intended to disallow an unsecured creditor’s claim for post-petition legal fees it could have done so explicitly.

In Seda, Aegis Texas Venture Fund II, LP (“Aegis”) timely filed a proof of claim in Seda’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case claiming its entitlement to principal, interest and pre-petition attorneys’ fees under its loan documents with Seda as well as post-petition attorneys’ fees for the duration of the case. Aegis made various arguments in support of the allowance of its post-petition legal expenses including: (1) the explicit award of post-petition fees to secured creditors under section 506(b) does not mean that such a provision should not be implicitly read into section 502(b) (i.e., unim est exclusion alterius (“the express mention of one thing excludes all others”) does not apply), (2) the United States Supreme Court decision in Timbers does not control as Timbers denied claims of anundersecured creditor for unmatured interest caused by a delay in foreclosing on its collateral, (3) the right to payment of attorneys’ fees and costs exists pre-petition and it should be irrelevant to the analysis that such fees are technically incurred post-petition, (4) because the Bankruptcy Code is silent on the disallowance of an unsecured creditor’s post-petition attorneys’ fees, these claims should remain intact, and (5) recovery of post-petition attorneys’ fees and costs is particularly appropriate where, as in Seda, the debtor’s estate is solvent and all unsecured creditors are to be paid in full as part of a confirmed Chapter 11 plan.

The Seda Court rejected Aegis’ arguments and held that an unsecured creditor is not entitled to post-petition attorneys’ fees even where there is an underlying contractual right to such fees and unsecured creditors are being paid in full. With respect to Aegis’ argument on the proper interpretation of sections 506(b) and 502(b), the Court cited the many instances in the Bankruptcy Code where Congress expressed its desire to award post-petition attorneys’ fees (e.g., section 506(b)), and found that Congress could have easily provided for the recovery of attorneys’ fees for unsecured creditors had that been its intent. Regarding Aegis’ argument that Timbers does not control, the Court held that in reaching its decision on the disallowance of a claim for unmatured interest the Timbers Court found support in the notion that section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly permit post-petition interest to be paid to unsecured creditors. The SedaCourt held this ruling should apply equally to attorneys’ fees to prohibit recovery of post-petition fees and expenses by unsecured creditors. The Court further held that section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a court should determine claim amounts “as of the date of the filing of the petition,” and therefore attorneys’ fees incurred after the petition date would not be recoverable by an unsecured creditor. In response to Aegis’ argument that non-bankruptcy rights, including the right to recover post-petition attorneys’ fees should be protected, the Seda Court noted that the central purpose of the bankruptcy system is “to secure equality among creditors of a bankrupt” and that an unsecured creditor’s recovery of post-petition legal fees, even based on a contractual right, would prejudice other unsecured creditors. The Court held this is true even in the case where the debtor was solvent and paying all unsecured creditors in full. The Court noted that a debtor’s right to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code is not premised on the solvency or insolvency of the debtor and, therefore, the solvency of the debtor has no bearing on the allowance of unsecured creditors’ post-petition legal fees.

Seda is the latest installment in the continued debate among the courts whether to allow an unsecured creditor’s post-petition attorneys’ fees. The Seda Court is of the view that an unsecured creditor cannot recover post-petition legal fees for the foregoing reasons, most notably that the Bankruptcy Code is silent on their provision and public policy disfavors the recovery of one unsecured creditor’s legal expenses incurred during the post-petition period to the prejudice of other unsecured creditors. Depending on the venue of the case, there will undoubtedly be many more instances of unsecured creditors seeking recovery of their post-petition attorneys’ fees in a bankruptcy case until the Supreme Court definitively rules on the issue. Until then, keep asking for that cake . . . .

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP