I was interviewed recently by IP Watchdog to get my predictions on which sovereign will prevail when the Supreme Court announces its ruling in the Allen v. Cooper case, which we’ve blogged about previously. To find out who I think will win and why, read the article here.
In a long-awaited, nearly unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, resolving a circuit split described in our earlier blog post, the Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit and held that rejection by the licensor of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not divest the licensee of its rights to continue to use the trademark under the license. Rejection has the same effect as a breach of the contract outside of bankruptcy and cannot be used to rescind the grant of the license. The licensee’s damages may be limited to prepetition, unsecured status, but that is not all the licensee is entitled to. The opinion was not unanimous not for any substantive reason, but because Justice Gorsuch felt that the dispute was moot, notwithstanding the majority’s explanation that the licensee still had a claim for money damages that the decision could have an impact on, which kept the matter live on appeal. Continue Reading
The newly released Examination Guide for trademark examiners at the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) entitled “Examination of Marks for Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Goods and Services after Enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill” clarifies that applications for hemp and hemp derived products, including CBD, filed after Dec. 20, 2018 as either intent-to-use or having a first use date on or after Dec. 20, 2018 will generally be eligible for trademark registration. Applications for marks for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused as unlawful under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if derived from hemp, as such goods may not be introduced lawfully into interstate commerce. The Guide additionally states that the USPTO will be requiring the description of goods explicitly to state “containing less than 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis.” Regarding hemp and hemp-derived product applications filed prior to Dec. 20, 2018, the USPTO will be giving these applicants the opportunity to amend their filing and first use dates to after Dec. 20, 2018. Continue Reading
Shortly after the proposed Washington Privacy Act (SB 5367) failed to pass the legislature, Washington is now set to revise its existing data breach law. HB 1071, which passed the legislature on April 22, 2019 and is awaiting the Governor’s signature, would substantially expand the definition of personal information, impose new breach notification requirements such as shortening the period for reporting data breaches, and make various other important revisions. These changes will increase the number of reportable breaches. Continue Reading
In July of last year, United Cannabis Corporation (“UCANN”) filed the first cannabis patent infringement lawsuit in the United States, against Pure Hemp Collective Inc. (“Pure Hemp”). It alleges that Pure Hemp infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911 (“the ‘911 Patent”), which is entitled “Cannabis Extracts and Methods of Preparing and Using Same.” Each asserted independent claim of the ‘911 patent is for a “liquid cannabinoid formulation, wherein at least 95% of the total cannabinoids” is some combination of one or more specified cannabinoids. See Claims 10, 20, 25. Pure Hemp filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the claims are invalid because they are directed to unpatentable natural phenomena. Continue Reading