After a delay due to their proficiency testing program roll out, the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) will now require all medical infused products and concentrates be tested for potency and homogeneity, starting November 1st, 2017.
After November 1st, all production batches of concentrates from medical product manufacturers will need to have a potency test before being sold, transferred or processed. The same goes for medical infused products, such as edibles and topicals. The homogeneity test refers to making sure THC or other active ingredients are distributed evenly throughout the product.
According to Alex Valvassori, author of a regulatory compliance-focused blog post on Complia’s website, these new testing requirements could lead to a surge in pricing, passed on to patients. He also recommends dispensaries take a close look at labels coming in from suppliers. They need to make sure potency data is listed clearly on the label to stay compliant.
Production batches created before November 1st are not required to meet the new testing regulations, but any and all batches after that date will be required to perform those tests.
A number of cannabis businesses have pursued federal intellectual property protection for their cannabis-related innovations, such as U.S. patents that protect novel cannabis plant varieties, growing methods, extraction methods, etc. Enforcement of such federal IP rights requires that the IP owner file suit in federal court asserting those rights against another cannabis company. However, given that cannabis is still illegal under federal law, the industry is uncertain about whether a federal court will actually enforce cannabis-related IP rights. This question might be answered soon.
The potential impact of this case goes way beyond the two parties involvedOrochem Technologies, Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on September 27, 2017, seeking to assert and enforce trade secret rights against Whole Hemp Company, LLC. According to the complaint, Orochem is a biotechnology company that uses proprietary separation methods to extract and purify cannabidiol (CBD) from industrial hemp in a way that produces a solvent-free and THC-free CBD product in commercially viable quantities.
The complaint goes on to say that Whole Hemp Company, which does business as Folium Biosciences, is a producer of CBD from industrial hemp and that Folium engaged Orochem to produce a THC-free CBD product for it. According to the allegations in the complaint, Folium used that engagement to gain access to and discover the details of Orochem’s trade secret method of extracting CBD so that it could take the process and use it at their facility.
The complaint provides a detailed story of the events that allegedly transpired, which eventually led to an Orochem employee with knowledge of the Orochem process leaving and secretly starting to work for Folium, where he allegedly helped Folium establish a CBD production line that uses Orochem’s trade secret process. When Orochem learned of these alleged transgressions, it filed the lawsuit, claiming that Folium (and the specific employee) had misappropriated its trade secret processes for extracting and purifying CBD.
While the particular facts of this case are both interesting and instructive for companies operating in the cannabis industry, the potential impact of this case goes way beyond the two parties involved.
If it moves forward, this case will likely provide a first glimpse into the willingness of federal courts to enforce IP rights that relate to cannabis. Orochem is asserting a violation of federal IP rights established under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and is asserting those rights in federal district court. As a result, the federal district court judge will first need to decide whether a federal court can enforce federal IP rights when the underlying intellectual property relates to cannabis.
If the court ultimately enforces these federal trade secret rights, it could be a strong indication that other federal IP rights, such as patent rights, would also be enforceable in federal court. Since the outcome of this case will likely have a far reaching and long lasting impact on how the cannabis industry approaches and deals with intellectual property, it’s a case worth watching.
According to a PennLive article, Pennsylvania’s Department of Health approved the first two cannabis laboratories for their medical cannabis program. ACT Laboratories of Pennsylvania LLC and Keystone State Testing LLC are the companies that were approved to perform analytical testing for safety and quality in cannabis products.
Both laboratories expect to be operational before the end of 2017, according to the PennLive article. Those labs are required to test for CBD and THC content, pesticides, moisture content, residual solvents and microbiological contaminants.
The temporary lab testing regulations are somewhat comprehensive, detailing lab reporting, licensing, sampling protocols and ownership stipulations, among other rules. ACT and Keystone, the labs that were approved by the Department of Health, have their approval for two years and can renew their license after.
While the state still expects the program to be fully implemented by 2018, Health Secretary and Physician General Dr. Rachel Levine said last week they are hoping to launch the program sometime next year, according to a press release. December 2017 will mark a full year since the state opened applications for licensing businesses.
January 2018 has long been the goal for the full implementation of the program. “We have made significant progress in getting this program off the ground since Governor Wolf signed the Medical Marijuana Act into law last year,” says Dr. Levine. “These proposed regulations for patients and caregivers to participate are one of the final pieces we need to have in place to launch the program sometime next year.”
Back in April of 2016, the Colorado Legislature passed HB 1436 in an effort to make infused products less appealing to children. On October 1st, 2017, the new law goes into effect, which will prohibit the sale of edibles in the shape of a human, animal or fruit.
Colorado has a history of regulating the market like this, with laws designed to limit the dosing, consistency and appeal of edibles to children. In 2015, regulators placed a 100-milligram cap on THC in infused products, separated into 10-milligram servings. In 2016, regulators began requiring the THC stamp on edibles, a symbol with a clear representation of what the product contains.
Some in the industry are welcoming of these new laws, while others think it might be overregulation. Regardless, manufacturers that have previously produced things like fruit candies or gummy bears now need to update their processes to use non-descript shapes for their products in order to stay compliant.
Bob Eschino, founder and president of Incredibles, an infused product manufacturer in Colorado, says these rules are not very effective at preventing kids from obtaining edibles, but it could help. “I believe consumer protection comes from CRP [child-resistant packaging], proper labeling, education and safe storage,” says Eschino. “CDPHE said themselves that stamping or shaping the products is the least effective way to prevent accidental ingestion. It’s a step that will add to consumer protection in a small way, but every little bit helps for now.” There are a number of more effective measures that regulators in Colorado take to prevent edibles from getting in the hands of children, such as child-resistant packaging, prohibiting advertising of cartoon characters, requiring opaque packaging and warning messages on labels.
According to Peggy Moore, partner of Love’s Oven, an infused product manufacturer, and board president of the Cannabis Business Alliance, the major change companies need to make to stay compliant is ordering new molds. “Depending on the quantity ordered, molds can cost $10,000 or more to fabricate and produce.,” says Moore. “If a company was not using molds previously there is also training that may be required to orient production staff on technique for making molded confections.” She says there are still plenty of options for manufacturers to use like botanical shapes (a cannabis leaf, for example), circles, squares, rectangles and other shapes.
Her company, Love’s Oven, makes caramels, baked goods, crackers and other non-descript shapes already. “At this point I am not aware of any manufacturers who are not already compliant with this rule in advance,” says Moore. “The most common solution is to move to a square, circle or other shape utilizing molds. “ Moore believes it is a producer’s duty to make products that are not enticing to children. “Regardless of the industry (alcohol, cannabis, pharma) I think we should exercise great caution to not produce products that are targeting children,” says Moore. “While I would love to see manufacturers self-regulate in this regard, clearly some guardrail regulations are needed at this point.”
In addition to the rule on using non-descript shapes, HB 1436 prohibits the use of additives in retail cannabis products that are designed to make it addictive, more appealing to children or misleading consumers. The rule does, however, exclude common baking and cooking ingredients. There is also a stipulation that permits local fire departments to perform annual fire inspections at cannabis cultivation facilities.
Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, has an extensive career in local and state-level politics, with his origins in Humboldt County as a political organizer. As a coffee shop owner about ten years ago in Humboldt, he let city council candidates use his space for community engagement, which eventually steered him towards a career in politics. As a heavily involved resident of Northern California and an advocate in local and state matters, he came to understand cannabis as a strong economic driver for the region and beyond.
Drayton saw firsthand how local economies benefit from cannabis as a source of income, economic activity, and providing occupational opportunities for many families in Humboldt County. After running a handful of local campaigns in the Humboldt region, Drayton served as deputy director for a state senate campaign in Riverside.
Towards the end of his tenure with the Democratic Party in California, the state legislature began working on medical cannabis regulations. “As we saw those regulations moving through, cities and counties began to ban cannabis throughout the state, which was a very unintended consequence,” says Drayton. “The goal was to put regulations forward that would create a framework for the industry to survive and function under, but they were not very fond of cannabis at the time. It was clear that we had a lot of work to do.” Politicians shying away from cannabis issues and a lack of real representation in the legislature for those stakeholders drove him to leave the state’s senate for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA).
In January of 2016, he jumped on board with the CCIA as their deputy director. Ahead of the California Cannabis Business Conference, September 21-22 in Anaheim, we sit down with Drayton to hear his take on the future of California’s cannabis regulations.
CannabisIndustryJournal: Give us a quick update on the regulatory framework in California and the changes we should expect.
Josh Drayton: One of the biggest challenges that California has faced has been the reconciliation of medical regulations with adult use regulations. Although California had medical cannabis legalized in 1996, we did not get those regulations put forward until 2015. That was called the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. That was approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor into law. It was created in the legislature. When Prop 64 passed, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, in November of 2016, it was passed through by a voter initiative. Any time that a piece of legislation goes to the voters, it trumps any legislation or regulations written by the state legislature. The real work has been to reconcile these two pieces of legislation into one regulatory structure. With that being said, we saw the initial trailer bill, attempting to reconcile these regulatory structures. That trailer bill is meant to address the new framework. Currently, we are waiting for the second viewing of the updated trailer bill SB 94 with all current amendments. Then we are anticipating those in the next couple weeks and we will see the regulations that will affect all these changes by November.
CIJ: How strong will local and municipal control be in the future?
Josh: It is incredibly strong and it is meant to be. I will say that California is like its own country. In Northern California, what they are willing to accept is very different in comparison to Southern California. Every city and county still has the ability to fully ban adult use and they can create and draft their own ordinances and regulations as long as it doesn’t go above state requirements. They can craft an ordinance to fit the needs of their city or county. Lets say you are in a rural area, delivery services might be important for patient access. Some areas might not allow brick and mortar dispensaries, and all that control lies in the cities and counties.
CIJ: Will there be a dosing limit for patients buying infused products? What about for adult use?
Josh: For adult use, there is going to be a limitation. Every edible has a maximum potency of 10mg of THC. For example, a chocolate bar can have a maximum of 100mg [of THC] but must be perforated in to 10mg pieces.
We have been advocating for, and what has been a priority for CCIA, is a lift of any sort of limits on medical infused products. Many patients have a higher threshold or tolerance and they may need 100mg and we don’t want them eating an entire chocolate bar to get that. We are anxiously awaiting the new trailer bill to see if we have been able to lift that concentration limit.
CIJ: Some have said the first draft of lab testing rules is extreme and overreaching. Can you speculate how those have been modified?
Josh: The lab testing is a huge educational issue for the industry and regulators. No state right now has been able to fully analyze the effects of different pesticide levels for a product that is smoked. We are basing all of our standards currently on food consumption. A lot of testing labs are concerned they are unable to test at the state’s threshold for some of these contaminants and pesticides; the detection limits seem very low. The testing portion will take years to work out, I am sure we will remove and add different pesticides and contaminants to the list. But again, the data and research isn’t fully there. There is a big push across the board that we will be able to do more research and testing so that the future of regulations can reflect reality, and ensure that consumer safety is priority.
CIJ: What do you think of the lack of residency requirement? When Oregon lifted it, outside investors flocked to the market. How might that impact local, California ownership and smaller businesses?
Josh: Well I do think that is a concern across the board. That is something that cities and counties have been adding to their requirements for the matrix of items needed to get a license. I think there is a very gray area when looking at investors opposed to operators. At what threshold does an investor become an owner? And if that person is from outside the state, how will that reflect on the evolution of the industry? It is a concern. Keeping limitations on the size of outdoor cultivation might help limit folks from outside the state coming into that arena. After living in Humboldt County for years, and living next to Mom and Pop growers for a long time, I don’t want to see them displaced by businesses coming from another area. We have been doing this a long time and I believe we have the best operators in the world.
CIJ: How is the CCIA helping businesses gear up for changing regulations?
Josh: Well one of our biggest areas of focus is education. Educating our own industry is one of the biggest parts in making sure the industry will be successful in this regulated market. Our legislative committee will take a position of support or opposition, which goes to our board, and those recommendations go to the state. The manufacturing committee has worked very closely with Lori Ajax [director of the Bureau of Cannabis Regulation] and her office, to educate on a variety of areas, guiding the way for state departments on how to properly regulate the industry. We have a Diversity and Inclusion Committee, Retail/Delivery, Testing, Distribution and Agricultural committees; across the board our committees create white papers that we submit to the regulatory departments of the state. We take regulatory officials on tours of facilities to get a hands-on view of what they are regulating. They have been speaking with scientists and growers, who often have a better understanding of current industry standards. We see these tours as very helpful. We have brought groups of regulators from LA County, Long Beach, Napa, Alameda and many others on tours of Bay Area commercial manufacturing facilities, dispensaries and nurseries. They have a lot of questions and we want to make sure we are a resource for them. Putting folks in touch with the right people and, in moving forward with this process, in an educated manner. Cannabis is a foreign language to many people and I get that.
CIJ: If you have one recommendation for regulators, what would that be?
Josh: My recommendation to regulators: do not over-tax this industry. Do not make taxation the priority for regulation. Over-taxation will strengthen the illicit market and that is not the goal. We need to make sure the taxes are reasonable to encourage businesses to operate in this market, not in the illegal one. If cities decide to ban, they need to know they can be hubs for illicit activity. Cities with bans might draw the illicit market because illegal operators won’t have to pay taxes or license fees. It is a long play, but responsible taxation is the best path to draw people out of this illicit market. We want to help protect public safety and health, safe medicine, safe products and keep cannabis out of the hands of children.
Demand for cannabis extracts, in particular vaping products, is at an all-time high. People want good oil, and they want to know something about the quality of it. It is therefore time to take a step back and consider the process from plant to cartridge. What is the current industry standard for cannabis extraction, what constitutes quality and where might we need to make some adjustments?
Right now, “clear” oil is hot. Customers have been led to believe that a pale gold extract is synonymous with the best possible cannabis concentrate, which is not necessarily the case. Producing a 95% pure THC extract with a translucent appearance is neither a great scientific feat nor a good representation of the whole cannabis flower. Moreover, it runs counter to the current trend of all-natural, non-processed foods and wellness products.
“My carrots are organic and fresh from the farmers market, my drink has no artificial sweeteners and my honey is raw, but my cannabis oil has undergone a dozen steps to look clear and still contains butane.”Cannabis is a fascinating plant. It is the basis of our livelihood, but more importantly, it enhances the quality of life for patients. The cannabis plant offers a plethora of medicinally interesting compounds. THC, CBD and terpenes are the most popular, but there are so many more. As of the most recent count, there are 146 known cannabinoids1. Cannabinoids are a group of structurally similar molecules2, including THC and CBD, many of which have shown biological activity3.
Then there are terpenes. These are the smaller molecules that give cannabis its distinct smell and flavor, over 200 of which have been identified in cannabis4. But wait, there’s more. The cannabis plant also produces countless other metabolites: flavonoids, alkaloids, phenols and amides5. All these components mixed together give the often-cited entourage effect6,7.
Current industry standards for cannabis oil extraction and purification stand in marked contrast to the complexity of the plant’s components. Due to an unsophisticated understanding of the extraction process and its underlying chemistry, cannabis oil manufacturers frequently produce oil of low quality with high levels of contamination. This necessitates further purifications and clean up steps that remove such contaminants unfortunately along with beneficial minor plant compounds. If one purifies an extract to a clear THC oil, one cannot also offer the full spectrum of cannabinoids, terpenes and other components. Additionally, claiming purities around 95% THC and being proud of it, makes any self-respecting organic chemist cringe8.
The labor-intensive, multi-step extraction process is also contrary to “the clean-label food trend”, which “has gone fully mainstream”9. Exposing the cannabis flower and oil to at least half a dozen processing steps violates consumer’s desire for clean medicine. Furthermore, the current practice of calling supercritical-CO2-extracted oils solvent-less violates basic scientific principles. Firstly, CO2 is used as a solvent, and secondly, if ethanol is used to winterize10, this would introduce another solvent to the cannabis oil.
We should reconsider our current extraction practices. We can offer cannabis extracts that are free of harmful solvents and pesticides, give a better, if not full, representation of the cannabis plant and meet the patients’ desire for clean medicine. Realizing extracts as the growth-driver they are11 will make us use better, fresher starting materials12. Understanding the underlying science and learning about the extraction processes will allow us to fine-tune the process to the point that we target extract customized cannabis concentrates13. Those, in turn, will not require additional multi-step purification processes, that destroys the basis of the entourage effect.
The cannabis industry needs to invest and educate. Better extracts are the result of knowledgeable, skilled people using precise instruments. Backroom extraction with a PVC pipe and a lighter should be horror stories of the past. And only when the patient knows how their medicine is made can they make educated choices. Through knowledge, patients will understand why quality has its price.
In short, over-processing to make clear oil violates both the plant’s complexity and consumers’ desires. Let us strive for pure extracts, not clear. Our patients deserve it.
 Prof. Meiri; lecture at MedCann 2017
 ElSohly, Slade, Life Sciences2005, 539
 Whiting, et. al.,JAMA.2015, 2456
 Andre, Hausman, Guerriero, Frontiers in Plant Science2016, 19
The demand for medical cannabis in Florida might be growing steadily, with patient numbers soaring, but that doesn’t mean the market will grow accordingly. Due to hampering regulations and a lack of state guidance, the industry in Florida is tiny and patients have limited options for medical cannabis products.
A little more than three years ago, Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law, legalizing medical cannabis, but only for terminally ill patients and only for one strain, Charlotte’s Web. That stipulated a low-THC, concentrated oil form of cannabis. That bill also set up the licensing framework for what is now an extremely limited market.
In November of 2015, the Office of Compassionate Use, now called the Office of Medical Marijuana, issued licenses for five dispensaries. To get a license, applicants needed to meet a variety of absurd requirements. That included being a nursery in business for thirty years, growing a minimum of 400,000 plants at the time of applying, paying $300,000 in fees and a $5 million performance bond.
Fast forward to Election Day last year when voters passed Amendment 2 by a wide margin, amending the state’s constitution and legalizing medical cannabis for a broader scope of qualifying conditions. What hasn’t changed, however, is the old vertical licensing framework. Critics have dubbed this a “pay-to-play” market, with massive barriers to entry prohibiting small businesses from gaining market access.
David Kotler, Esq., attorney and partner at CohenKotler P.A., says we shouldn’t expect to see a viable market for years as a result of all this red tape. “Honestly the State of Florida, with their limited licenses and odd requirements to qualify for licensure have stunted what could be a good market both for businesses and patients,” says Kotler. “It has been an inefficient roll-out and is truly an embarrassment for the state, legislature and the Department of Health.” Kotler says he’s heard reports of extremely limited product selection, poor quality, as well as no dried flower being offered.
But the patients are pouring in by the thousands- on July 27th, the Office of Medical Marijuana reported 26,968 registered medical patients, with more than 10,000 patients signing up since June 7th. “Despite my belief that it would be a slow roll out, it appears the patient count is picking up,” says Kotler. “The elimination of the 90-day doctor-patient relationship will certainly help this.” He is referring to the reversal of a waiting period policy, where patients had to wait 90 days before receiving a medical cannabis certification. “But there still seems to be a backup with issuance of cards and poor guidance from the Department of Health leaving many doctors unsure of what they should be doing,” says Kotler. The rules and guidelines for physicians participating in the program are still not established, but the Florida Board of Medicine expects to vote on them this week, reports say.
With seven licensees right now and a total of ten licensees by October allowed to grow and distribute cannabis products, the question remains if that is enough to satisfy the growing number of patients. According to Matt Karnes, founder and managing partner of GreenWave Advisors, the state is adjusting by adding more licensees and allowing them to operate more dispensaries, potentially trying to sate that demand. “Both of these amendments will likely serve as a catalyst for revenue growth but could be tempered by a lack of physician participation (as we have seen in other states) in the medical marijuana program,” says Karnes. “For every incremental 100,000 patients who register in the Medical Marijuana program, four more licenses will be issued and existing licensees will be allowed to open another four dispensaries (current cap is 25). We do not expect an incremental 100,000 patients until sometime in 2021.” His firm’s market projections account for those increases and edibles now being sold, but still no dry flower allowed. They project total sales figures in the state to reach $712 million by 2021.
Those figures are contingent on the increase in registered patients and more licensees. If Florida’s vertical licensing model remains, it’s quite possible the state will see a cannabis shortage, much like Nevada during their opening month of adult use sales. “Instead of learning from so many states before it, Florida forged a path down the rabbit hole that may limit Florida’s potential until either a legislative change or a backlash at the polls in the form of an amendment bringing forth adult use,” says Kotler. In New York, that vertical licensing model arguably created a monopoly, with only a select few businesses controlling the entire market. That doesn’t foster market growth; it hurts quality, keeps prices high and prevents real competition. “We see how that worked out for New York,” says Kotler. “We cling to that despite what could be a large patient base with the potential to service tourists who wish to have reciprocity.”
Florida’s market could be a powerhouse for the state, with the potential to generate millions in tax revenue, create thousands of jobs and actually help patients get the medicine they need. But until the state ditches their conservative, closed-door approach, we won’t see the industry truly flourish. .
According to a press release yesterday sent out by the National Hemp Association (NHA), on Wednesday, June 28th, Board Chairman Geoff Whaling met with senior U.S. Department of Agriculture staff, along with Erica McBride from the Pennsylvania Industrial Hemp Council. The press release says this is the first time that Agricultural Secretary Perdue has had his staff meet with the hemp industry. “The meeting reaffirmed critical elements of the working relationship that the hemp industry has established with the USDA since the enactment of Sec. 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill,” reads the press release put out by the NHA.
The press release says the USDA will support hemp pilot projects, considering grant and loan applications and other means of funding under the USDA and NIFA. “All hemp industry participants are encouraged to participate in these funding opportunities,” says Whaling. “USDA confirmed that nine Industrial Hemp funding requests to NIFA are being processed and that USDA has encouraged those who submitted previous requests to resubmit them.”
“USDA also offered to provide a quick response to any Secretary or Commissioner of Agriculture who is looking for clarification on either the Farm Bill or SOP, which may be preventing the States that have enacted enabling Industrial Hemp legislation from advancing research,” says Whaling.
A big driver of the meeting was the support of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2018 on behalf of the NHA. That bill, which Congressman James Comer (R-KY) plans on introducing in July, would essentially remove hemp from the Controlled Substances Act, allowing industrial cultivation of the plant. It also would set a THC limit and give states the power to regulate their own hemp industries.
“There is new leadership in the USDA, on the Hill and within our industry,” said Whaling. “I am confident that this group will advance our industry to a level never before achieved.”
Obstacles to American cannabis reform are creating a quirky if valuable market. Cannabis is still a “Schedule I” drug. From a practical perspective, this has created a multi-billion dollar industry that as of yet, cannot get reliable banking services. It also means that patients cannot get the drug covered under health insurance. There are no national safety requirements for growing, packaging, labelling or consumption.
This is certainly not the case elsewhere. Other countries are rapidly outpacing the U.S. in such regards even if their commercial markets are not (yet) of the same size. Outside of Canada right now, Europe is the place where most of these things are happening.
Just as in the U.S., however, there is no one single path to reform.
Who Is Interesting In Europe?
This is an evolving question, but here, for the moment are the market leaders and what is going on locally:
Germany. Cannareform auf Deutsch currently underway makes this the most exciting country in Europe right now. The country is basically the “California of the EU” as it were, with about 20 million more people.
As of January 19, the lower house of the German parliament voted unanimously to legalize cannabis for medical use. Further, they voted to cover it under public health insurance which covers 90% of Germans. Yes, this is a system in process. Yes, there are problems. Health insurance companies appear to have launched a tepid attempt to slow this down, but just as in Canada, they are already facing court challenges. It is a losing battle here. Both legal and legislative mandate are very clear.
This is an industry that will also begin to grow, per government estimates, at between 5-10,000 patients per year for the next couple of years. It could grow faster than that. With over 1 million potential patients already, and a high interest in plant-based and natural medicine, this is a market more than ready for cannabis products. There are now up to ten growing bids up for grabs here and those who have applied are waiting anxiously as the government is set to announce the winners this summer. The big push right now on the ground is doctor and patient education as well as getting patients signed up for trials.
Recreational reform is also far from dead here. The medical question, in fact, has only inspired activists to redouble their efforts to get recreational reform finalized sooner than later. Especially given developments elsewhere, including locally.
Switzerland. The Swiss are approaching the question of legalization in another unique way not seen anywhere else. That said, they are clearly inspired by events in other places. Since 2011, low-THC cannabis has been for sale in regular shops. However in the last quarter of 2016 and into the first of this year, the market all of a sudden seems to have woken up. There are now over 160 shops either selling the drug or applying to sell it. This is all product that is taxable.
Thanks to this, reformers are now pushing a bill federally that would legalize and tax the sales of all THC products – no matter their concentration. In effect, in other words, the Swiss are looking at tax revenue first. If they succeed, they will be the first country to enter the market this way. It will also push other countries, starting with their closest neighbours, to examine the question of legalization just on this front. The economic justification alone is compelling. Expect Austria to also look at the problem this way.
Spain. The country is widely billed as the “next Holland.” Why? Cannabis reform has been very similar procedurally. Due to loopholes in the current law, the Spanish have been able to establish a thriving “cannabis club” market. These clubs are member-driven and non-profit. However locals who are over the age of 21 can sign up and smoke in “semi-private.” Legislation now pending in the Spanish legislature would focus on better regulation of both the clubs and the existing grows that support them. The way the Spanish seem to be approaching the issue is to give larger cities and regions direct control over regulation of the industry. However for now, this is a market that is steadfastly resistant to commercial development on the scale seen in other places. Investors – especially from overseas, are avoiding the market because of this uncertainty.
Holland. Generation X reformers are used to the idea of the grey market created by the unique nature of Dutch culture and the plant. For the better part of 40 years, the entire industry here has been based on a unique market of seed producers and growers. That, in turn, supports the coffee shop culture. There are many proposals to change the law here, and the industry will probably begin to better regulate – starting with cultivation, as the rest of Europe turns its attention to this issue. It was Holland after all, that started this. What is next for Holland 2.0? It is likely that regional developments will also shape this market too. It is still part of the EU.
Italy. While a bit of an outlier, the Italians are also in the game now. How further reform will proceed here, however is anyone’s guess. The Italian military began growing and distributing cannabis to pharmacies last year. The first medically focused canna café has now opened in Rome.
The Eastern Bloc
Eastern European countries are all over the map on legalization – although most are approaching this as a medical issue. In Czech Republic, legalization has moved forward here steadily in large part because of existing national drug policy. Croatia began importing from Canada last year in the form of cannabis concentrates. Both of those countries have digital prescription systems to integrate with medical cannabis, as part of the legislation legalizing medical use in 2015. This digital dispensation system is also unique so far in Europe, although other countries will be entering this area quickly. Even Turkey has begun to implement reform, allowing producers to begin to grow the plant domestically for local medical use.
In the first installment of this three-part series we explored the reasons why cannabis breeders should adopt a strong IP strategy sooner rather than later and looked briefly at the types of IP that those breeders and growers should be considering. In this second installment, we will examine in more detail patent protection for innovative new varieties of cannabis and how one can use that patent protection to further their business objectives.
What is a patent and what do I do with one?
A patent is a right granted by the government to protect a new and useful invention. Importantly, a patent gives its owner an exclusionary right as opposed to a right to do something – the patent owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the invention (or, for a plant, any of its plant parts) for the term of the patent, which is 20 years for the types of patents that can be used to protect new cannabis varieties.
Because it is an exclusionary right, there are essentially two things that a patent owner can use a patent to do: 1) disallow anyone else from producing and selling that variety (or any of its parts) so that the patent owner is able to capture all of the sales for that variety, or 2) use license contracts to allow other growers to grow the variety while paying royalties back to the patent holder. The latter option can often be beneficial because it can greatly expand production of the variety by licensing to multiple growers. However, this does require some oversight on the part of the patent holder to make sure that the product those growers are producing is high quality –growers who produce poor quality product can hurt the existing brand. Cannabis breeders should consider these options up front when formulating their IP strategy.
Which type of patent should I use to protect my new variety?
As a further consideration, there are two different types of patents that can be used to protect new plant varieties and there are multiple factors to consider when determining which one to pursue.
U.S. Plant Patents are a special type of intellectual property that is used solely for the protection of asexually/vegetatively reproduced plant varieties. Traditionally, plant patents have been used to protect new varieties of ornamental and fruit trees and shrubs, such as a new variety of rose bush or a new variety of apple tree, such as the ‘Honeycrisp’ apple tree, patented in 1990. This type of patent has recently been used to protect a new cannabis variety called ‘Ecuadorian sativa’, while several other cannabis varieties, ‘Midnight’, ‘Erez’, and ‘Avidekel’ varieties are awaiting plant patent approval.
On the other hand, a “utility patent” can be used for new “compositions” (e.g., a new type of grow light) or new types of “methods” (e.g., a new method of extracting compounds from cannabis or a new method of growing cannabis to produce higher THC content). This type of patent can also be used to protect a new plant variety so long as the applicant can demonstrate that the variety is novel and not obvious over what was already known in the art. To date, two utility patents have been issued to protect cannabis varieties that exhibit certain cannabinoid and terpene profiles (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,095,554 and 9,370,164), and other similar utility patent applications are also pending (e.g., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0298511).
One of the main determining factors in deciding which type of patent to pursue is the nature of the invention. Growers and breeders will likely want to seek a plant patent if they have developed a new variety of cannabis plant: 1) which was made using simple breeding techniques, 2) which can be stably reproduced in an asexual manner (such as by cuttings and cloning), and 3) which is different from its parents and certain other strains on the market, but not completely distinct from everything that already exists. On the other hand, growers and breeders may want to consider a utility patent if they have developed a new variety of cannabis plant: 1) which has unique features in comparison to everything else that exists today (such as a unique disease resistance or chemical makeup), 2) which has unique features that can be demonstrated by some sort of biological or chemical test, and 3) that can be reproduced either asexually or by seed. It is also important to keep in mind that these two routes are not mutually exclusive – one could apply for both types of patent if the variety satisfies the criteria for both.
Though there are numerous similarities between the processes for obtaining both types of patents, there are also clear differences that should be taken into consideration when making the decision about which type of patent to seek. For instance, the grant rate for plant patents is much higher, meaning there is a higher likelihood that the plant patent application will eventually be granted compared to a utility patent application. Further, plant patent applications typically move quicker through the Patent Office, frequently being granted in approximately 18 months, while utility patent applications typically take two to four years (or more) to issue.
Another factor that should be considered is cost. Because a plant patent application is much simpler to prepare and typically moves through the Patent Office more swiftly, the cost for obtaining a plant patent is generally significantly lower than for a utility patent.
Determining which type of patent to pursue requires consideration of numerous factors. However, it is important to keep in mind that, regardless of which type of patent a grower or breeder seeks, there are certain time limitations that can impact the right to obtain a patent. For example, patent protection can only be sought if the variety to be patented has not been sold, offered for sale, or otherwise made publicly available more than one year before the patent application is filed. After that time, the invention becomes part of the “public domain.” So if a breeder chooses to wait to seek patent protection for a new variety, they risk losing the ability to ever get that protection.
Clearly, growers and breeders have to weigh several options when formulating a patent strategy, including what type of patent to pursue and what to do with the patent once they obtain it. Thinking through these issues early on allows the cannabis breeder an opportunity to formulate a strategy that is most beneficial in furthering their business objectives. Additionally, regardless of the type of patent strategy used, it is often helpful to combine it with trademark and branding strategy, which allows the business to utilize a more comprehensive approach to IP for their innovative strains. The third installment of this series will focus on trademarks for cannabis products and some unique issues that facing the cannabis industry today.
Legal disclaimer: The material provided in this article is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. The opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The provision of this information and your receipt and/or use of it (1) is not provided in the course of and does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship, (2) is not intended as a solicitation, (3) is not intended to convey or constitute legal advice, and (4) is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. You should not act upon any such information without first seeking qualified professional counsel on your specific matter.