The basis of the suit is that Claims 1 & 14 are being violated by GW’s CO2 process used for Epidiolex:
The ’632 Patent generally relates to a process for producing an extract containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), CBD, and optionally the carboxylic acids thereof from cannabis plant material. The patent describes that one “object of the present invention [is] to provide Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, Δ8-tetrahydro-cannabinol and cannabidiol in pure form and as an extract in the form of preparations for medical applications,” and to obtain these active principles from hemp varieties having low cannabinoid contents (e.g., fiber-type hemp) because of their better availability.
Claim 1 of the ’632 Patent recites as follows:
A process for producing an extract containing Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD), and optionally the carboxylic acids thereof, from a cannabis plant material or a primary extract thereof, said process comprising: (1) subjecting the cannabis plant material or primary extract thereof to CO2 in liquefied form under subcritical pressure and temperature conditions to extract cannabinoid components; and (2) reducing the pressure and/or temperature to separate tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol, and optionally the carboxylic acids thereof, from the CO2.
Claim 14 of the ’632 Patent recites as follows:
A process for producing an extract containing Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) from a cannabis plant material or a primary extract thereof, said process comprising:
(1) decarboxylating cannabinoid carboxylic acids in the cannabis
plant material or primary extract thereof;
(2) subjecting the decarboxylated cannabis plant material or primary
extract thereof to CO2 in liquefied form under subcritical pressure and
temperature conditions to extract cannabinoid components; and
(3) reducing the pressure and/or temperature to separate tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol from the CO2.
This seems frivolous but I have no skin in the CO2 game. If the suit somehow stands, that sets an interesting precedent.
Perhaps someone more familiar with co2 extraction than me can answer the question, did they patent something they actually discovered? Or did they patent squat and claim something everybody else was already doing was their idea first? Considering the plaintiff, I would suspect the latter.
Canopy Growth has some of the most absurd patents. They have one that is a patent for every cannabinoid you can think of plus every terpene you can think of in pretty much any feasible application. This is not how the patent system is supposed to work.
I can’t imagine being able to patent something as simple as different pressures in your blowdown containers. Or even variable pressures to drop out compounds.
How the hell is anyone going to come in and tell you to run your machine differently
The patent here is the one that has more than just subcritical extraction with CO2, it has in-line cannabinoid conversions using adsorbents/sieves, use of entraining agents and Co2 chromatography by Adam Mueller - first filed in 2000. This patent has been passed around the EU pharma-canna scene for a while. I wonder what aspects of it GW is using that Canopy Growth has proof of?
Actually keep the annotated patent images pin’d on my wall in my office- its been quite the inspiration for me over the years.
There are novel aspects of this patent, but most of it are techniques that have been known to those skilled in the art of separation science / Co2 processing of natural products etc since at least the late 80’s-mid-90’s. Alot of which is covered in J.King’s book "Extraction of Natural Products using near-critical solvents from 1992’.
I’d like to hear from our resident Co2 wizard @JonaaronbrayAzoth on the topic.
The in-line cannabinoid conversion claim in the patent seems to be the most non-obvious and novel claim from my perspective.
EDIT Just read SISU’s post above (facepalm) so this applies to just claim 1 and 14, and isnt covering the cooler aspects of the “invention” i mentioned above… If thats the scope of the suit, then this does seem frivolous to my non-patent attorney eyes…
Plus it’s so incredibly easy to add some kind of functionally inert “change” or upgrade with the same end result to skirt a patent like that. Seems stupid.
The process according to claim 1, wherein in step (1) the CO.sub.2 in liquefied form is at a pressure of 70 bar or less.
The process according to claim 3, wherein in step (1) the CO.sub.2 in liquefied form is at a temperature of between about 20.degree. C. to about 30.degree. C.
The process according to claim 1, wherein in step (1) the CO.sub.2 in liquefied form is at a pressure of about 60 bar.
The process according to claim 1, wherein in step (2) the CO.sub.2 in liquefied form is at a pressure of about 55 bar or less.
The process according to claim 3, wherein in step (2) the CO.sub.2 in liquefied form is at a pressure of about 55 bar or less and a temperature of about 20.degree. C. or less.
The process according to claim 1, which further comprises separating monoterpenes and sequiterpenes from the tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol using a separator.
3, 4, and 5 are garbage claims and can be worked around without infringement. Whomever wrote the patent should have expanded the claims to be well below and above the parameters they thought were optimal.
Literally all GW has to do is prove that they decarbed all of the material they extracted ( claim number 1 of their patients) and the rest of Growth Canopy’s claims become moot.
Patents are mostly useless in this modern clown world of banana republic’s judicial systems.
I can say for certain that the only parties that will benefit from this suit are the lawyers.
C02 sucks, its not selective and therefor a pain in the ass to expedite a standardized extract with. Dont agree ? show me spent material from a good extraction that has less than 2% TAC and Ill concede.
Also consider that the 2 companies involved in this are large ego driven heartless companies that could care less about us … unless of course they could sue us for something or buy us up to hedge their profit margins, maybe they just need another 100 million $ worth of write downs that shareholders can’t complain about lol
I’m 99% sure I just got asked to be an expert witness for this case, even though I don’t know jack other than the basics of sub vs. supercritical, certain SOPs, etc when it comes to CO2. So is there anyone here I could recommend?
Gw owns the patent on anything with pharmaceutical co2 extraction. I forget more then I remember but I led the consulting on, at the time the largest co2 extractor in Oregon for hemp, we went through thor because they’re owned by gw. Pretty much any technology that can exist for pharmaceutical grade thc extract they own or a company they silently own a percentage of. They strategically partner with bad mother fuckers so that when legalization happens they have the strangle hold on production. I believe they hold patents for hplc and just everything. They also charge about 7 million for a machine that you would think would run more for that price. The minute legalization occurs like in Canada and people have already set up their systems because they went for the 2million dollar option instead of theirs then they will shut them down or partner up with them. I’m pretty sure we don’t beat them in this industry.
Everybody involved with those companies and invested in them are some of the most wealthy who perform crazy due diligence and don’t walk past a penny on the ground. They will not lose. Especially when the banking climate allows for them to use banks. Once again they will use the force of the us legal system and either sell their rights to use that tech and it’s already happening in Canada.
That story ended after 1 year of work flying around the country building the basis for the operation. When time came to go to thor in Pittsburgh for training after the machine arrived my partner sent his son for training on the machine and didn’t pay me for my time. So fuck land developers. It make sense though land developers are in it to pass on it to their heirs. And so this is how the cannabis industry will end up. I think it’s called nepotism and in 30 years after we’re gone it will be fuck face grandchildren of these reptiles pressing buttons and being the kings of kush in America. It will go the way of anheiser Bush where those dumbshits let it go to shit and then sell it away losing.
That’s just my 2 cents that took a left turn but that’s the kind of people that run those companies like gw and land developers lol
The criteria for an expert witness is merely that you know more about the subject than the average person. You don’t really have to be an expert. Of course, your credibility is always relevant for the opposing council to question.
To quote a late and great former professor of mine, “I’m not saying all experts are whores, but for enough money, anyone will say anything.”
Professor Jerry King and Mamata Mukhopadhyay are the ones that wrote the books, probably pretty good choices. They’re certainly more familiar with the history of the innovations and the prior art than I dare say anyone directly in the cannabis industry
