" Based on a study referenced in Scialdone’s patents (US10071127B2 & US9694040B2), the effects of cannabinoids and hydrogenated cannabinoids were examined, in reference to tumor growth in mice. In these cases, the hydrogenated cannabinoids showed significant improvement in the reduction of tumor sizes; with Hexahydrocannabinolic Acid (HHCA) at a 39.70% reduction, and HCBDA at 55.83% reduction (compared to the non-hydrogenated compounds THCA at 37.67% and CBDA at 47.02%) (source). It’s possible that hexahydrocannabinoid (HHC), being more stable than tetrahydrocannabinoid (THC), and less prone to dehydrogenation (converting to DHC and CBN), may have an impact on resistance towards oxidative metabolic breakdown in the liver, though there is no critical examination at this time. It has been observed in metabolic studies that hydrogenated compounds are resistant to this kind of breakdown, suggesting that hydrogenated cannabinoids may exhibit this trait as well."
First one is
6,6,9-Trimethyl-3-pentyl-7,8-dihydro-6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol
Chemdraw says the other two are
6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6a,10a-dihydro-6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol
and
6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-9,10-dihydro-6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol
Drug patents are good for 20 years after the drug’s invention. In most cases, this time frame is halved to 10 years after testing finally brings the drug to the marketplace.
Patents are typically awarded within a few years after the patent application submission. A common misconception is that the patent begins only after the drug hits the market. However, the patent protects against copycat drugs from competitors in the pharmaceutical industry even before a drug is available for public use.
There is not a good short answer for that. The answer would be “it depends.” Google drug patent law and exclusivity and you will see why that’s a bit of a complex topic.
Maybe if you have a totally different process for producing it, different application, different delivery method, but it depends on what the patent entails, how old the drug is, approval status, etc. If a completely new drug is being created like these hydrogenated cannabinoids, then it’s wise not to go near it (or more specifically try to market it).
Best to consult a lawyer who specializes in patent law because every situation will be different. Most will let you pay them like $500-$1000 and they will do what is basically a background check on existing/pending patents and advise you on how they think you should proceed.
They also will explain it better than any of us could try to in laymen’s terms. Lawyers lowkey hate when non-lawyers try to explain legal things because we’re pretty much always getting it mostly wrong.
Definitely. Which is why it’s a no brainer to give 500 bucks to a patent lawyer and ask them to brush up on it and see what they think. Some patents would be harder (more expensive) to enforce than others. It’s always a case-by-case thing. Some definitely are not ones you want to go near (not if the goal is to make money and also keep that money).
I may be wrong, but I am from a generation where three kinds of “chemical” patents could be discerned; use patents, method patents, and NCE (new chemical entities) patents.
When talking about IP I think it is very important to be able to understand what is actually claimed. That will tell you which category or categories the patent belong to.
Furthermore, that will help you gauge the potential strength of the patent. If I remember correctly, composition of matter IP are the strongest, particularly if bolstered by novel, non-obvious use.
To say that HHCs are thoroughly patented is patently wrong. So much has been published in scientific literature and failing to mention that in new filings just makes the inventor look disingenuous and add to the burden of an underfunded USPTO and their examiners.
Never ever let patents stand in your way. If you think you are on to something, file your own IP or contact the original IP holder and work out a deal.
I’m in the belief that basic science can be patented but not enforced. What I mean by this is: A whole new chemical/molecule that has its own unique attributes can be patented and enforced, a restructuring of a molecule can not be enforced.
This concept goes beyond just chemicals and why elliots patents could never be enforced. You can’t enforce a patent on science that someone could have easily discovered by themselves.
If patent law allowed those to be enforced technological and scientific advancement would be hindered to such an extent creating anything new would be impossible.
I did not say that every hydrogenated cannabinoids is patented. Just that many are. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. The problem is it doesn’t matter what you or I think. My point was that everyone should be consulting a patent lawyer if they intend on proceeding with hydrogenated cannabinoids knowing that several have been covered in existing patents. This is just common sense.
We all can say what we think is enforceable, what should and shouldn’t be enforceable, and share our opinions all day long. Still… consult a patent lawyer (not a forum) to make sure you’re covered before you build a business around producing something. Especially in this case when you know there’s a chance you may be infringing. Ask a professional what your exposure is.
It is all distilled, pun intended, into what is “non-obvious” and novel, and into what is an obvious extension of readily available information. If in addition to being new, the molecule(s) also have unique attributes, then you may have a pretty strong patent position.
One cannot patent a molecule. One can patent a novel process or a specific intended use, but not a molecule. The mere existence of that molecule elsewhere does not automatically mean ones IP has been infringed upon.
You are right, it doesn’t matter what you or I think; It basically comes down to our respective expert witnesses. To think that the majority of the flurry of IP activity in our field is worthy of protection is borderline delusional, or even worse, scare tactics.
