Patented Cannabis

[acespicoli]

United States Patent
Lewis et al.
US009095554B2
Patent No.: US 9,095,554 B2
Date of Patent: Aug. 4, 2015

(54) BREEDING, PRODUCTION, PROCESSING
AND USE OF SPECIALTY CANNABS
(71) Applicant: Biotech Institute LLC, Westlake
Village, CA (US)
(72) Inventors: Mark Anthony Lewis, Westlake Village,
CA (US); Michael D Backes, Westlake
Village, CA (US); Matthew Giese,
Westlake Village, CA (US)
(73) Assignee: Biotech Institute LLC, Los Angeles,
CA (US)
(*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
patent is extended or adjusted under 35
U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
(21) Appl. No.: 14/216,744
(22) Filed: Mar 17, 2014
(65) Prior Publication Data
US 2014/0287O68A1 Sep. 25, 2014

Patents Assigned to Biotech Institute LLC

Extracts of cbd and thc​

Patent number: 11528861

• Abstract: The invention provides compositions and methods for the breeding, production, processing and use of specialty Cannabis.
  
  

18. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% THC by weight.

19. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% CBD by weight.

Referenced Cited

U.S. Patent Documents

4279824	July 21, 1981	McKinney
6403126	June 11, 2002	Webster et al.
6630507	October 7, 2003	Hampson et al.
7968594	June 28, 2011	Guy et al.
9095554	August 4, 2015	Lewis
9370164	June 21, 2016	Lewis
9642317	May 9, 2017	Lewis et al.
20040049059	March 11, 2004	Mueller
20080103193	May 1, 2008	Castor et al.
20080241339	October 2, 2008	Mitchell et al.
20090035396	February 5, 2009	De Meijer
20100216872	August 26, 2010	Letzel et al.
20110098348	April 28, 2011	De Meijer
20120311744	December 6, 2012	Sirkowski
20130109747	May 2, 2013	Whittle
20140243405	August 28, 2014	Whalley
20140245494	August 28, 2014	Cohen
20140245495	August 28, 2014	Cohen
20140287068	September 25, 2014	Lewis et al.
20140298511	October 2, 2014	Lewis
20150359188	December 17, 2015	Lewis et al.
20150366154	December 24, 2015	Lewis et al.
20160324091	November 10, 2016	Lewis et al.
20170202170	July 20, 2017	Lewis et al.
20180064055	March 8, 2018	Lewis et al.
20180284145	October 4, 2018	Giese et al.

Foreign Patent Documents

2923091	March 2015	CA
2459125	October 2009	GB
WO 2011/110866	September 2011	WO
WO 2014/145490	September 2014	WO
WO 2015/065544	May 2015	WO
WO 2016/105514	June 2016	WO
WO 2016/123160	August 2016	WO

Other references

• Booth, JK et al. 2017, PLoSONE; vol. 12, No. 3; pp. 1-20.
• Fischedick, J.T et al., Phytochemistry 2001, vol. 71; pp. 2058-2073.
• Russo, E., British Journal of Pharmacology, 201: vol. 163; pp. 1344-1364.
• Fischedick, J.T. et al., Phytochemistry 2010, vol. 71; pp. 2058-2073. (Year: 2010).
• Pure Analytics LLC Web Document; published online Dec. 2012; 5 pages. (Year: 2012).
• Russo, E.B., The British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) vol. 613, pp. 1344-1364. (Year: 2011).
• HealthyHempOil.com taken from the web, Jan. 4, 2014; 1 page. (Year: 2014).
• Gieringer, D., “Cannabis “Vaporization”: A Promising Strategy for Smoke Harm Reduction.” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics (2001); 1 (3-4): 153-170.
• Klingeren and Ham, “Antibacterial activity of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol”, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1976); 42 (1-2): 9-12.
• Pertwee, Rg., “Emerging strategies for exploiting cannabinoid receptor agonists as medicines.” Br J Pharmacol. (2009); 156 (3): 397-411.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Girl Scout Cookie (Patient Solutions) on Jun. 23, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/2014062818281O/http://analytical360.com/m/flowers/251990, 3 pages.
• Booth et al., “Terpene synthases from Cannabis sativa,” PLoS ONE (2017) 12(3): e0173911, 20 pages.
• Agilent Technologies, Inc. “Consideration for Selecting GC/MS or LC/MS for Metabiomics”, Feb. 24, 2007, 4 pages.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Critical Mass on Aug. 25, 2014, http://analytical360.com/m/expired/276599, 5 pages.
• Analytical 360 analysis of Sweet & Sour Widow CBD on Nov. 2, 2013. http://analytical360.eom/m/expired/131803, 4 pages.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Sweet n' Sour Widow on May 8, 2014, http://analytical360.com/m/expired/230612, 4 pages.
• Bertoli, A., et al., “Fibre hemp inflorescences: From crop-residues to essential oil production”, Industrial Crops and Products, Nov. 1, 2010, pp. 329-337, vol. 32, No. 3.
• Casano et al., “Variations in Terpene Profiles of Different Strains of Cannabis sativa L.” Acta Horticulturae, vol. 925, pp. 115-121, 2011.
• CBD Crew “About Us” Printed copy provided as published on Apr. 10, 2012. URL: http://cbdcrew.org/about-us/, 3 pages.
• CBD Crew “Varieties” printed copy as published on Mar. 20, 2012 URL: http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/, 2 pages.
• CBD Crew Analysis Report; (Critical Mass, Fundacion CANNA; Mar. 21, 2012), pp. 1-2, http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/cbd-critical-mass/.
• CBD Crew Sweet and Sour Widow analysis published Nov. 2, 2013, pp. 1-5. http://analytical360.com/m/expired/131803.
• CBD Crew variety “Sweet and Sour Widow” retrieved from the internet: https://web.archive.org/web/20120409021918/http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/cbd-sweet-and-sour-widow/, published on Apr. 9, 2012, retrieved on Mar. 10, 2017, 2 pages.
• CBD Crew Web Pub; (Critical Mass sample available from Northwest Canna Connection; Feb. 26, 2014, pp. 1-5. http://analytical360.com/m/expired/197158.
• CBD-crew front page on Nov. 22, 2014. www.cbdcrew.org, 2 pages.
• De Meijer and Hammond, “The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (V): regulation of the propyl-/pentyl cannabinoid ratio, completion of a genetic model.” Euphytica (2016); 210: 291-307.
• De Meijer et al., 2003, “The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.” Genetics, 163: 335-346.
• De Meijer et al., 2005, “The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (II) Cannabigerol Predominant Plants.” Euphytica, 145:189-198.
• De Meijer et al., 2009, “The Inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (III) Variation in Cannabichromene Proportion”, Euphytica, 165:293-311.
• De Meijer et al., 2009, “The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (IV) Cannabinoid-Free Plants”, Euphytica, 168:95-112.
• Fischedick, J. et al., “Metabolic fingerprinting of Cannabis sativa L., cannabinoids and terpenoids for chemotaxonomic and drug standardization purposes” Phytochemistry 2010, vol. 71., pp. 2058-2073.
• G. of Vancouver Island Seed Company, “How to make Clones”, Cannabis Culture Magazine published on Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2009, 58 pages. Available online at http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/how-make-clones.
• Halent Laboratories “Test Results for Dougie's Farm H0-21”, Test ID# 2960-1, Feb. 14, 2013, 5 pages.
• Halent Labs Chemical Analysis for “Pineapple Purps” retrieved from the internet: http://steephilllab.com/thcv-the-sports-car-of-cannabinoids/, retrieved on Mar. 17, 2017, 1 page.
• International PCT Search Report for PCT/US2014/030267, dated Nov. 7, 2014, 6 pages.
• International PCT Search Report for PCT/US2014/046694, dated Jan. 5, 2015, 7 pages.
• International Preliminary Reporton Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/030267 dated Sep. 15, 2015, 10 pages.
• International Preliminary Reporton Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/046694 dated May 3, 2016, 11 pages.
• Kojoma, M. et al., “DNA polymorphisms in the tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase gene in “drug-type” and “fiber-type” Cannabis sativa L”, Forensic Science International, Jun. 2, 2006, pp. 132-140, vol. 159, No. 2-3, Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.
• McPartland and Russo 2001 “Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts: Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts”, Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics vol. 1, No. 3/4,2001, pp. 103-132.
• Pertwee, Rg. 2008 “The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids: Δ9 tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and Δ9tetrahydrocannabivarin” Br. J Pharmacol. 153(2): 199-215.
• Russo and Guy, “A tale of two cannabinoids: the therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol”, Medical Hypothesis, 2006, 66:234-246).
• Russo, E.B., “Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects” The British Journal of Pharmacology, 2011, pp. 1344-1364, vol. 163.
• Satyal, P. et al. “Chemotyping and Determination of Antimicrobial Insecticidal, and Cytotoxic Properties of Wild Grown Cannabis saliva from Nepal” Journal of Medicinally Active Plants, Dec. 2014, vol. #3, Issue 1, pp. 9-16.
• Seedsman Listing of “Sweet and Sour Widow”, on May 21, 2013, http://web.archive.org/web/20130521...com/en/cbd-sweet-n-sour-widow-regular-5-seeds, 3 pages.
• Solon, Olivia, “Medical Marijuana Without the High”, Jul. 5, 2012, retrieved from the internet: www.wired.com.
• Steep Hill Halent Cannabis Analytics and Research: “Dougs Varin Decarb THCV Std.”, Steep Hill Labs, Inc., Reported Jun. 10, 2014, retrieved from the internet: http://steephilllab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DougsVarinKief_Decarbed.pdf, retrieved on Mar. 17, 2017, 3 pages.
• Steep Hill Halent Cannabis Analytics and Research: “Dougs Varin THCVA Std.”, Steep Hill Labs, Inc., Reported Jun. 10, 2014, retrieved from the internet: http://steephilllab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DougsVarinKief.pdf, retrieved on Mar. 17, 2017, 3 pages.
• The Werc Shop Terpene Profiling Services, Aug. 26, 2012. http://web.archive.org/web/20120826071723/http://thewercshop.com/services/terpene-profiling-services, 4 pages.
• Van Bakel, et al. “The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa”, Genome Biology, Oct. 20, 2011, p. R102, vol. 12, No. 10, Biomed Central Ltd., London, GB.
• Waksmundzka-Hajnos and Monika, “High Performance Liquid Chromatography in Phytochemical Analysis (Chromatograhic Science Series).” Published May 14, 2012. p. 582 provided.
• Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/030267 dated Nov. 7, 2014, 9 pages.
• Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/046694 dated May 1, 2015, 10 pages.
• “CBD Strains From Europe Grown out in California.” O'Shaughnessy's News Services (Winter/Spring 2013), The Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice. Also available online at: www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PCBD-update-22-26.pdf.
• “CBD: A Patient's Guide to Medical Cannabis.” by Leinow & Birnbaum, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California (2017), Chapter 9 Alphabetized list of High-CBD Strains, pp. 252-252, 10 pages.
• “Terpenoids, ‘minor’ cannabinoids contribute to ‘entourage effect’ of Cannabis-based medicines.” by Gardner, O'Shaughnessy's News Services, The Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice (Autumn 2011), p. 1 and 19-21, 4 pages, Available online at http://www.beyondthc.com/osr-shop/.
• “The Release of Omrita Rx3.” O'Shaughnessy's News Service (Autumn 2011), p. 15, 1 page, Also available online at http://www.beyondthc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/CBDiary2.pdf.
• CBD Crew Strain, “CBD Nordle” Available to the public on or before Aug. 14, 2013 and retrieved from the internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20130814133339/http://cbdcrew.org:80/varieties/cbdnordle/ 2 pages.
• Communication (“letter of protest”) to the Canadian Patent Office dated Jan. 25, 2018, in Canadian Application No. 2,911,168, 9 pages.
• Elsohly, M.A., et al., Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1984; vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 500-514, 15 pages.
• Lab Results for “CBD-Nordle.” Available online at: http://cbdcrew.org/labresults/cbd-nordle/, Sep. 2014, 5 pages.
• Analytical 360, Test results for “Nordle”, Jun. 22, 2013 (Jun. 22, 2013), retrieved from the internet: http://archive.analytical360.com/m/archived/79871, retrieved on May 29, 2019.
• Analytical 360, Test results for “Nordle”, Jan. 8, 2014 (Aug. 1, 2014), retrieved from the internet: http://archive.analytical360.com/m/archived/166950, retrieved on May 29, 2019.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Girl Scout Cookie (Patient Solutions) on Jun. 23, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/20140628182810/http://analytical360.com/m/flowers/251990, 3 pages.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Omrita Rx on Feb. 20, 2014, http://archive.analytical360.com/m/archived/192732, 3 pages.
• Grotenhermen et al., “The therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids”, Dtsch Arztebl Int., vol. 109, No. 29-30, pp. 495-501, 2012.
• Hillig, “A chemotaxonomic analysis of terpenoid variation in Cannabis,” Biochemical Systematics and Ecology (2004), 32:875-891.
• Okumura et al., “Terpinolene, a component of herbal sage, downregulates AKT1 expression in K562 cells”, Oncology Letters, vol. 3, pp. 321-324, 2012.

Patent History

Patent number: 11528861
Type: Grant
Filed: Oct 27, 2017
Date of Patent: Dec 20, 2022
Patent Publication Number: 20180064055
Assignee: Biotech Institute, LLC (Westlake Village, CA)
Inventors: Mark Anthony Lewis (Ventura, CA), Michael D Backes (Los Angeles, CA), Matthew W Giese (Columbus, OH)
Primary Examiner: Russell Kallis
Application Number: 15/795,904

Classifications

International Classification: A01H 6/28 (20180101); A01H 5/02 (20180101); A01H 1/04 (20060101); A01G 22/67 (20180101); A01H 5/12 (20180101); A01H 4/00 (20060101);

 

[acespicoli]

Claims​

1. A composition comprising: wherein the terpene profile consists of terpinolene, alpha phellandrene, beta ocimene, carene, limonene, gamma terpinene, alpha pinene, alpha terpinene, beta pinene, fenchol, camphene, alpha terpineol, alpha humulene, beta caryophyllene, linalool, caryophyllene oxide, and myrcene terpenes, wherein the terpene oil content is the additive content of the terpenes in the terpene profile, and wherein the THC, CBD and terpene oil contents are measured by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and calculated based on weight of the composition.
a) a cannabidiol (CBD) content that is greater than 5.0% by weight;b) a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content that is at least 3.0% by weight;c) a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene, and wherein terpinolene is the most abundant terpene; andd) a terpene oil content greater than 2.0% by weight;

2. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is a solvent reduced oil or a tincture.

3. An edible product comprising the composition of claim 1.

4. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is prepared from a single plant genotype.

5. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 5.0% THC by weight.

6. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is not a Cannabis plant part or Cannabis cell.

7. A method for producing a composition comprising cannabinoids, said method comprising the steps of: wherein the terpene profile consists of terpinolene, alpha phellandrene, beta ocimene, carene, limonene, gamma terpinene, alpha pinene, alpha terpinene, beta pinene, fenchol, camphene, alpha terpineol, alpha humulene, beta caryophyllene, linalool, caryophyllene oxide, and myrcene terpenes, wherein the terpene oil content is the additive content of the terpenes in the terpene profile, and wherein the THC, CBD and terpene oil contents are measured by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and calculated based on weight of the composition.
a) providing cannabidiol (CBD), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and terpinolene; andb) combining the CBD, THC, and terpinolene to produce a composition comprising: i) a CBD content that is greater than 5.0% by weight; ii) a THC content that is at least 3.0% by weight; iii) a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene, and wherein terpinolene is the most abundant terpene; and iv) a terpene oil content greater than 2.0% by weight;

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the composition is a Cannabis extract.

9. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 10.0% THC by weight.

10. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% THC by weight.

11. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 30.0% THC by weight.

12. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 40.0% THC by weight.

13. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 50.0% THC by weight.

14. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 10.0% CBD by weight.

15. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% CBD by weight.

16. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 30.0% CBD by weight.

17. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 40.0% CBD by weight.

18. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% THC by weight.

19. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% CBD by weight.

 

[acespicoli]

Really had no idea there were patents on this type of thing...

Damages in Patent Infringement Lawsuits

Reasonable royalties and lost profits are the most common types of damages awarded to compensate a patent owner for infringement.

www.justia.com

Damages in Patent Infringement Lawsuits​

If someone infringes on a patent that you own, you should be able to prevail in a patent infringement action. Often, however, the patent owner and the alleged infringer negotiate a settlement rather than going through a full trial. If your case does go to trial, and you receive a finding of infringement, you likely will get damages to compensate you for the losses caused by the infringement. The court also may award injunctive relief.
Section 284 of the Patent Act provides the main framework for damages in patent infringement actions. These are available only if the patent owner defeats any defenses raised by the alleged infringer, such as arguments regarding the validity of the patent or the extent to which the infringer’s product or process is equivalent to a patent claim. A jury can determine damages, but a judge will determine them if the case is not heard by a jury. Damages must be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and at least amount to a reasonable royalty for the infringer’s use of the patented invention. The court also has the option to award up to three times the actual amount of damages incurred, if the judge feels that the situation warrants it.

Reasonable Royalties and Lost Profits​

The two main types of damages awarded in patent infringement actions are reasonable royalties and lost profits. (However, the Patent Act does not limit damages to certain types, and a judge can award other types of damages that may be appropriate under the facts of the case.) A reasonable royalty is the fair market value of a license that the infringer would have purchased from the patent owner, who would receive royalties for the use of the invention. A court might calculate the fair market value of a license for one infringing item and then multiply that value by the number of items that infringed.
Meanwhile, damages for lost profits compensate the patent owner for any money that they would have made if not for the infringement. Getting these damages requires showing that your business suffered losses because of the infringement. You might be able to prove that the invention distinguished your products from your competitor’s products, such that consumers chose your products because of the invention. If your competitor steals your invention, and more consumers start buying their products because your invention has improved them, you may be able to argue that those profits should have belonged to you.


Experts
Both parties might present expert testimony to help calculate business losses or the fair market value of a license.
A court commonly will consider expert testimony in determining the amount of reasonable royalties and lost profits. This is because juries and judges likely will not be familiar with the industry in which the patent owner and the infringer operate. They also may not be aware of the market value for a certain product or process. Your patent attorney can help you retain an expert and present other industry evidence to support your argument for the amount of damages. The defendant may also retain an expert and present conflicting evidence to support a lesser award.


Last reviewed October 2023

 

[acespicoli]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
Share some from all countries where cannabis is becoming "legal" post them here and discuss implications

A patent is a set of exclusionary rights granted by a state to a patent holder
for a limited period of time, usually 20 years.

 

[pipeline]

Trade marked Strains

Can someone please school me a bit on how one goes about trade marking genes? Or are they just trade makerking a specific name? Assuming you are not re creating that strain under the same name than surely the genetics are free to use. Especially if they are like "g13" or other random unknown...

www.icmag.com

2 ways, create an individual clone using any technique other than classical breeding, get it DNA sequenced, and patent that clone for a novel usage. Or create a line that is identifiable as different to every other line out there, and that breeds true for that thing for 3 generations. You'll have to pay to have it grown and recorded, but then you get some sort of breeders rights. It can't have ever been offered for sale though prior to them being granted. If granted, then that line is yours, for a certain period of time. Can't remember where you send it, I did the research but don't even remember the thread it was in. One of Sam's I think talking about patents, gw pharma, and their guenevere (sp?) Clone.

thanks all
I fed the info from that link to Chat GPT and asked the same basic question.-

"To answer your initial question more clearly, the legality of using patented or trademarked genes to breed a new lineage involves multiple factors:

1. Plant Patents: A plant patent protects a specific plant genotype. It restricts others from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the patented plant. However, a sport or mutant of a patented plant may not be of the same genotype and could be separately patentable.
2. Plant Variety Protection Certificates (PVPC): These provide protection for new, distinct, uniform, and stable varieties of sexually reproducing plants. They limit reproduction rights, excluding others from reproducing, producing hybrids, or importing/exporting the protected variety.
3. Utility Patents: Utility patents cover various aspects of plant inventions, including plants, seeds, plant varieties, and methods of producing or using plants. They provide broader protection and last for 17 years.
4. Trademarks: Trademarking a plant protects its name, not the plant variety itself. It helps in associating a variety with a company name but doesn't restrict the propagation of the plant itself.
5. Cannabis Plant Patents: The USPTO grants patents for drug cannabis plants, but it's essential to follow specific guidelines and requirements.

Based on this information, the restrictions or permissions regarding using patented or trademarked genes for breeding depend on the type of protection (plant patent, PVPC, utility patent, or trademark) and the particular circumstances or characteristics of the plants involved.

Remember that these things are only enforceable in the territories they are granted in. You have to do it separately in each country you want protection in. Those listed above would appear to cover America, different in u.k. and different again in each legal jurisdiction. Frankly, I can't imagine the cost being worth the reward .

 

[gmanwho]

looks like mark lewis and biotech have been busy trying to corner the market

 

[GMT]

The medical dispensaries scene will be what it's all about. Although frankly they'd be better off copyrighting the names rather than patenting the clones. What are they going to do? Go around every dispensary and test every type to make sure that no one is selling their bud under another name? It's the hype around the name that sells the bud. In fact if they don't copyright the names anyway, you'll get people selling other buds under their hyped bud's name and bypass the patent entirely.

 

[pipeline]

Just don't choose a name that is already taken like Skittles or Monkey Balls!

Need to make sure breeders are rewarded for their talent and hard work!

 

[pipeline]

My cultivar Sativa Candy Chunk F14

 

[GMT]

I'd cross my bruised nuts to the Glue but the only obvious name, sticky nuts, sounds too perverted to copyright

 

[pipeline]

They change the name on some strains in the dispensaries if they aren't selling.

GMO wasn't selling originally when it was introduced into a health-conscious community who didn't want to consume genetically modified organisms. They changed the name and it started selling out.

 

[GMT]

How does Bruce Banner sell, he was an actual gmo

 

[pipeline]

The Pot Cast

A Cannabis podcast for budding enthusiasts. Long-form cannabis content focusing on breeding, growing, history and culture. [email protected]

soundcloud.com

Bred Your Own Line - Mean Gene & Heavy Dayze Patreon Exclusive

HD & Mean Gene Patreon exclusive Pt 1!
January 21

enjoy

 

[pipeline]

Names are everything. Sometimes a dispensary won't allow the cannabis to be viewed before the customer buys it. They just look at a name purchase it and it gets retreived from "the vault".

I do think the names have got a little out of hand in some cases, We need to get standardized cannabis nomenclature to tell people exactly what was the genetic background of a particular plant.

View attachment 18954128

Says , "H5-H19 is homogeneous gene pool" and H20 Polyhybrid "AB x CD" = Landrace "AB x CD."

"Landrace strain with fully stabilized traits "20 generations of line breeding is generally considered to be adequate for landrace status" Homezygous for selected traits.

 

[NorCalSkunkLord]

Claims​

1. A composition comprising: wherein the terpene profile consists of terpinolene, alpha phellandrene, beta ocimene, carene, limonene, gamma terpinene, alpha pinene, alpha terpinene, beta pinene, fenchol, camphene, alpha terpineol, alpha humulene, beta caryophyllene, linalool, caryophyllene oxide, and myrcene terpenes, wherein the terpene oil content is the additive content of the terpenes in the terpene profile, and wherein the THC, CBD and terpene oil contents are measured by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and calculated based on weight of the composition.
a) a cannabidiol (CBD) content that is greater than 5.0% by weight;b) a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content that is at least 3.0% by weight;c) a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene, and wherein terpinolene is the most abundant terpene; andd) a terpene oil content greater than 2.0% by weight;

2. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is a solvent reduced oil or a tincture.

3. An edible product comprising the composition of claim 1.

4. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is prepared from a single plant genotype.

5. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 5.0% THC by weight.

6. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is not a Cannabis plant part or Cannabis cell.

7. A method for producing a composition comprising cannabinoids, said method comprising the steps of: wherein the terpene profile consists of terpinolene, alpha phellandrene, beta ocimene, carene, limonene, gamma terpinene, alpha pinene, alpha terpinene, beta pinene, fenchol, camphene, alpha terpineol, alpha humulene, beta caryophyllene, linalool, caryophyllene oxide, and myrcene terpenes, wherein the terpene oil content is the additive content of the terpenes in the terpene profile, and wherein the THC, CBD and terpene oil contents are measured by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and calculated based on weight of the composition.
a) providing cannabidiol (CBD), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and terpinolene; andb) combining the CBD, THC, and terpinolene to produce a composition comprising: i) a CBD content that is greater than 5.0% by weight; ii) a THC content that is at least 3.0% by weight; iii) a terpene profile in which myrcene is not the dominant terpene, and wherein terpinolene is the most abundant terpene; and iv) a terpene oil content greater than 2.0% by weight;

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the composition is a Cannabis extract.

9. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 10.0% THC by weight.

10. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% THC by weight.

11. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 30.0% THC by weight.

12. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 40.0% THC by weight.

13. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 50.0% THC by weight.

14. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 10.0% CBD by weight.

15. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% CBD by weight.

16. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 30.0% CBD by weight.

17. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 40.0% CBD by weight.

18. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% THC by weight.

19. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% CBD by weight.

The equivalent of waving your hat over the bunker on a stick.

The only interesting plant patents don't mention the word cannabis, or any lame ass buzzword currently associated with cannabis.

 

[acespicoli]

some people enjoy cannabis others enjoy profits
even met some of the kindest most generous people I have ever known
that are able to do what they love and still make a modest profit without hurting anyone else

 

[Dime]

In 1930, the United States began granting patents for plants. By 1931, the very first plant patent was issued to Henry Bosenberg for his climbing, ever-blooming rose. Under patent law, the inventor of a plant is the person who first appreciates its distinctive qualities and reproduces it asexually. In other words, a plant can be created (such as by breeding or grafting) or it can be "discovered."

Plants discovered in "the wild" or uncultivated state cannot be patented, because they occur freely in nature. But a plant discovered in a cultivated area can be patented, even if it is discovered in a cultivated area owned by someone else. In addition, a tuber plant such as a potato cannot be patented.

In order to acquire a plant patent, the inventor must have actually asexually reproduced the plant. Asexual reproduction means that the plant is reproduced by means other than seeds, usually accomplished by cutting or grafting of the plant. Asexual reproduction is the cornerstone of plant patents because that is what proves that the inventor (or discoverer) can duplicate the plant. The patented plant also must be novel and distinctive.

 

[acespicoli]

Monsanto legal cases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Finola (hemp) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1. IP Law

The Truth About Hemp IP​

Profiting from your hemp genetics and protecting yourself from competitors may be trickier and more nuanced than you think.

Paul Barbagallo | January February 2020

© dane mark | iStock
So, you’re ready to make money off your hemp-related intellectual property (IP)? You have managed to develop a cultivar that consistently yields a high percentage of cannabidiol (CBD) and a low percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Naturally, you believe you’ve got something special on your hands that people will line up to pay for. And you’d be correct. With proper IP protection, you can easily license the right to use that cultivar and watch the money flow in. Right? Well, not so fast.
The process of obtaining IP protection is not as straightforward as you think, and the competition is fierce. The threshold to prove your uniqueness is high.
Following the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill), the “unicorn” that everyone is chasing right now is a cultivar of hemp that guarantees high CBD and low THC, says Corey Cox, J.D., an attorney in Vicente Sederberg’s Denver office.
“We are seeing a huge push right now toward proprietary hemp genetics and unique varieties of the hemp plant,” says Cox, who specializes in regulatory compliance for hemp and marijuana businesses. “People are trying to develop these varieties and protect them from use by competitors. And some want to only license their IP, so they don’t have to have any physical manufacturing capabilities. They simply want to license their genetics to production partners.”
This hemp IP rush can be attributed to new federal testing guidelines. To be legal under the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp must test at or below 0.3% THC—the main psychoactive compound in marijuana. If your hemp crop tests above the 0.3% limit, you’ve got what is known as “hot hemp,” which to the federal government essentially means you grew illegal marijuana. According to most state statutes, those hemp crops must then be destroyed. That puts a premium on good genetics. And while genetics are not the only factor involved in a crop’s final CBD and THC levels, they are an essential foundation
“Having hemp seeds that you know are not going to test high for THC—and can be reproduced without complication—is a really, really big deal,” says Dale Hunt, Ph.D., J.D., a plant scientist, cannabis lawyer and registered U.S. patent attorney with over 20 years of experience protecting plant varieties.
But while IP licensing may soon become big business in the hemp industry, the devil is in the details. U.S. IP law and regulations, along with the 2018 Farm Bill itself, have far more nuances and complexity than many people understand up front.
To separate fact from fiction, Hemp Grower spoke with IP experts who offered three imperatives to help you not only protect your intellectual property but also profit from it.

© dane_mark | iStock

1. Study Your Options.​

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides different protections for different kinds of intellectual property. As a starting point, hemp businesses should understand the key differences between at least two types of patents: a plant patent and a utility patent.
A plant patent is granted to someone who invents or discovers—and asexually reproduces—a distinct and new variety of plant (other than a tuber-propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state). As Sterne, Kessler Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. attorneys Pauline Pelletier, J.D., and Deborah Sterling, J.D., explain in a recent blog post, plant patents offer protection for asexually propagated plants (clones having identical genetics to those of the patented plant), but they do not protect sexually produced plants (those cultivated by seed). A plant patent, in essence, provides legal protection from a competitor who grows your specific cultivar from a clone.
A utility patent, on the other hand, is granted to someone who creates a new or improved—and useful—product, process or machine. A utility patent offers much broader protections than a plant patent. It protects your unique seeds and the various chemical compositions of the plant—not just the clone.
“While a plant patent covering a commercially valuable strain for cloning purposes certainly has value, its scope is bounded to the genetics of the patented plant and leaves room for sexual reproduction (e.g., seed farming),” Pelletier and Sterling wrote in their blog post. “By contrast, a utility patent covering a non-naturally occurring strain, where the claim is defined in terms of the plant’s novel characteristics, could make the avoidance of infringement more difficult and thus serve as stronger patent protection.”
Hunt explains a plant patent is like a copyright on a single cultivar—it protects against illegal clonal copying of the exact genotype of the claimed cultivar. In contrast, a utility patent treats a cultivar as an invention.
One other way exists to protect IP associated with plant varieties. In addition to legalizing industrial hemp, the 2018 Farm Bill opened the possibility for hemp IP protection through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plant Variety Protection Office, which provides intellectual property protection to breeders of new varieties of seeds and tubers for 20 years.
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) essentially protects seeds from being “copied” in bulk to compete with the owner of the variety. However, it permits use of the seeds for breeding to make other new varieties. This is called the “breeder’s exemption.” PVP rules also expressly permit the purchaser of protected seeds to keep enough seeds to replant the same acreage as the seeds he or she originally purchased for planting. This is called the “farmer’s exemption.”
In sum, while plant patents apply to asexually propagated plants, utility patents may apply to genes, traits, methods, plant parts and varieties. Additionally, PVP is now available for seeds and tubers.

2. Let the Business Be Your Guide.​

No one-size-fits-all solution exists in plant IP, especially with a plant like cannabis that can be propagated via seeds or clones. This is why companies should let their sales strategy dictate their IP strategy, Hunt says.
So, based on what you sell, what kind of IP protection do you need?
If you make money selling hemp seeds, a utility patent may be your best defense. A plant patent would only be useful if the cultivar that is the source of the seeds is itself so valuable that you would want to control its propagation, Hunt says. The most prominent example of this in the hemp industry is Charlotte’s Web, a popular CBD-dominant strain that has helped countless young patients as an epilepsy treatment and has become a figurehead for the legalization of medical cannabis after its appearance in CNN’s Weed series. In 2019, Charlotte’s Web received what is believed to be the first plant patent for a hemp strain. The plant patent describes “CW2A” as a Cannabis sativa L. cultivar that is capable of producing up to 6.24% CBD and only 0.27% THC. For Charlotte’s Web, a plant patent is like insurance against potential theft of the propagating material of its “seed parent” cultivar. However, that plant patent would not directly fit or support the business of selling seeds; in those cases, you would need a utility patent, since a utility patent protects your unique seeds, not just your clones, Hunt says.
Shifting to another scenario, let’s say you sell clones to nurseries that will propagate and sell more clones to other people. Then you need a plant patent and a license agreement with that nursery requiring it to pay you for every clone it makes and sells, Hunt says.
But if you’re only selling harvested flower or extracts and you do all your own farming, the risk of IP theft or infringement would be negligible, since you would have more control over what potential IP others can access. But Hunt says a grower can still seek IP protection as a form of insurance: a plant patent to protect the genetics in case someone was to take a cutting and start competing with you or a utility patent to claim the genetic line more broadly.

3. Prepare for Legal Battles.​

While patent litigation has long been a battlefront for technology-focused companies, IP skirmishes are beginning to expand into the cannabis and hemp industries. In 2018, in the first case of its kind, United Cannabis Corporation (UCANN) sued Pure Hemp Collective Inc., for infringing on its 911 Patent, which covers liquid cannabinoid formulations of a purified CBD and/or THC greater than 95%.
The case serves as a reminder that cannabis and hemp companies must be mindful that production methods, technologies and business processes, as well as product logos and packaging, are all subject to legal protection, wrote Knobbe Martens lawyers Jonathan Hyman, Hans Mayer and Christopher Smith in an article for Hemp Grower’s sister magazine Cannabis Business Times. As laws surrounding production and sale of cannabis begin to relax, companies may be more willing, or even eager, to enforce their intellectual property rights than before, they noted.
As the hemp industry grows, legal battles over awarded patents’ validity may intensify, says Theodore Y. McDonough, J.D., counsel for Carter Ledyard & Milburn.
“People have been experimenting with cannabis and hemp for quite some time behind the scenes, under the radar,” McDonough points out. “Somebody may very well have come up with that CBD formulation a number of years prior, and the question is, is that going to be a ‘prior use’ that would invalidate an otherwise valid patent? We really don’t know yet.” In intellectual-property law, “prior user rights” can serve as a patent-infringement defense. But there has not been much case law to go on.
With growers under pressure to produce hemp that will test below the 0.3% THC limit, all eyes for now are on the genetics.
“Any company that’s involved in genetics has a huge business opportunity in developing these strains, and obviously that takes time and money,” says Nathalie Bougenies, an attorney with Harris Bricken who represents clients who have filed for hemp patents. “As we know, a big part of the value in a company is their IP assets. My advice is to definitely spend the time to prepare a patent application [to] protect your work and make money.”

Commonly Asked Questions About Your Cannabis and Hemp IP​

Can I apply for a patent—either a utility patent or a plant patent—to protect my marijuana-related (i.e., plants above the 0.3% THC level) intellectual property?
Yes. Nothing changed for marijuana patent seekers as a result of the 2018 Farm Bill. Even prior to the bill’s passage, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) still accepted and granted applications for marijuana-related patents.
Can I apply for a marijuana trademark?
Technically no. As long as marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance at the federal level, primary trademark protection is not available for trademarks relating to the production, sale or distribution of marijuana. The USPTO will issue trademarks for ancillary cannabis goods, such as paraphernalia, but stops short at anything plant-touching.
Hemp businesses, however, can now apply with the USPTO for trademarks that directly involve the hemp plant and its cultivation as well as hemp-related products and CBD derived from it, as long as the hemp in question has less than 0.3% THC, says Alexander G. Malyshev, J.D., the co-chair of Carter Ledyard’s Cannabis, Hemp & CBD Industry Group.
Can I apply for a patent or trademark for a CBD product or formulation?
In 2019, the USPTO released guidelines on how it will examine federal trademark applications for CBD products in light of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Under the Farm Bill, certain products containing CBD and no more than 0.3% THC can be legally sold in interstate commerce. But there’s a catch: These goods have to be derived from hemp and cannot be foods, dietary supplements or pet treats, as these are still unlawful under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
As DLA Piper attorneys Aislinn Smalling and Carissa L. Bouwer explained in a recent blog post, trademark applications for permitted CBD goods and services will be treated differently depending on the application filing date. For applications filed after the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, the USPTO will follow the normal examination procedures and allow registration of marks covering “hemp-derived goods and services, including CBD.” However, the scope of registration will only include those products which specify that their THC content is under 0.3%.
The examination procedure for applications filed before Dec. 20, 2018, is more complicated, Smalling and Bouwer wrote. Because all cannabis products were illegal prior to the 2018 Farm Bill, for any applications filed before this date, either the applicant’s use was unlawful or the applicant had no bona fide intent to use the mark in lawful commerce at the time of the filing. However, the USPTO will allow applicants to change the filing date of applications to Dec. 20, 2018, and amend use-based applications to an intent-to-use basis.
This, of course, does not account for CBD derived from marijuana plants (those containing more than 0.3% THC) or the complexity surrounding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules.
“When you’re licensing IP related to CBD products, you will often run into many of the same issues encountered in marijuana licensing deals because of the FDA’s current position on CBD,” says Alison Malsbury, J.D., an attorney with Harris Bricken. “Federal trademark protection is still unavailable for many CBD products, making licensing tricky.”
Paul Barbagallo is a Boston-based writer and a former senior editor for Bloomberg News and beat reporter for Bloomberg BNA.

 

[acespicoli]

A utility patent, on the other hand, is granted to someone who creates a new or improved—and useful—product, process or machine. A utility patent offers much broader protections than a plant patent. It protects your unique seeds and the various chemical compositions of the plant—not just the clone.
“While a plant patent covering a commercially valuable strain for cloning purposes certainly has value, its scope is bounded to the genetics of the patented plant and leaves room for sexual reproduction (e.g., seed farming),” Pelletier and Sterling wrote in their blog post. “By contrast, a utility patent covering a non-naturally occurring strain, where the claim is defined in terms of the plant’s novel characteristics, could make the avoidance of infringement more difficult and thus serve as stronger patent protection.”
Hunt explains a plant patent is like a copyright on a single cultivar—it protects against illegal clonal copying of the exact genotype of the claimed cultivar. In contrast, a utility patent treats a cultivar as an invention.
One other way exists to protect IP associated with plant varieties. In addition to legalizing industrial hemp, the 2018 Farm Bill opened the possibility for hemp IP protection through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plant Variety Protection Office, which provides intellectual property protection to breeders of new varieties of seeds and tubers for 20 years.
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) essentially protects seeds from being “copied” in bulk to compete with the owner of the variety. However, it permits use of the seeds for breeding to make other new varieties. This is called the “breeder’s exemption.” PVP rules also expressly permit the purchaser of protected seeds to keep enough seeds to replant the same acreage as the seeds he or she originally purchased for planting. This is called the “farmer’s exemption.”
In sum, while plant patents apply to asexually propagated plants, utility patents may apply to genes, traits, methods, plant parts and varieties. Additionally, PVP is now available for seeds and tubers.


interesting

Nonprovisional (Utility) Patent Application Filing Guide

The purpose of this guide is to provide you with basic information about filing a utility patent application with the USPTO.

www.uspto.gov

USDA Now Accepting Applications of Seed-Propagated Hemp for Plant Variety Protection | Agricultural Marketing Service

www.ams.usda.gov

 

[pipeline]

US Patent for Extracts of cbd and thc Patent (Patent # 11,528,861 issued December 20, 2022) - Justia Patents Search

The invention provides compositions and methods for the breeding, production, processing and use of specialty Cannabis.

patents.justia.com

Excerpt from patent:

Terpenes and Terpenoids in Cannabis Plants



Terpenes are a large and diverse class of organic compounds, produced by a variety of plants. They are often strong smelling and thus may have had a protective function. Terpenes are derived biosynthetically from units of isoprene, which has the molecular formula C5H8. The basic molecular formulae of terpenes are multiples of that, (C5H8)n where n is the number of linked isoprene units. The isoprene units may be linked together “head to tail” to form linear chains or they may be arranged to form rings. Non-limiting examples of terpenes include Hemiterpenes, Monoterpenes, Sesquiterpenes, Diterpenes, Sesterterpenes, Triterpenes, Sesquarterpenes, Tetraterpenes, Polyterpenes, and Norisoprenoids.


Terpenoids, a.k.a. isoprenoids, are a large and diverse class of naturally occurring organic chemicals similar to terpenes, derived from five-carbon isoprene units assembled and modified in thousands of ways. Most are multicyclic structures that differ from one another not only in functional groups but also in their basic carbon skeletons. Plant terpenoids are used extensively for their aromatic qualities. They play a role in traditional herbal remedies and are under investigation for antibacterial, antineoplastic, and other pharmaceutical functions. The terpene Linalool for example, has been found to have anti-convulsant properties (Elisabetsky et al., Phytomedicine, May 6(2):107-13 1999). Well-known terpenoids include citral, menthol, camphor, salvinorin A in the plant Salvia divinorum, and the cannabinoids found in Cannabis. Non-limiting examples of terpenoids include, Hemiterpenoids, 1 isoprene unit (5 carbons); Monoterpenoids, 2 isoprene units (10C); Sesquiterpenoids, 3 isoprene units (15C); Diterpenoids, 4 isoprene units (20C) (e.g. ginkgolides); Sesterterpenoids, 5 isoprene units (25C); Triterpenoids, 6 isoprene units (30C) (e.g. sterols); Tetraterpenoids, 8 isoprene units (40C) (e.g. carotenoids); and Polyterpenoid with a larger number of isoprene units.

View attachment 18947374
United States Patent
Lewis et al.
US009095554B2
Patent No.: US 9,095,554 B2
Date of Patent: Aug. 4, 2015

(54) BREEDING, PRODUCTION, PROCESSING
AND USE OF SPECIALTY CANNABS
(71) Applicant: Biotech Institute LLC, Westlake
Village, CA (US)
(72) Inventors: Mark Anthony Lewis, Westlake Village,
CA (US); Michael D Backes, Westlake
Village, CA (US); Matthew Giese,
Westlake Village, CA (US)
(73) Assignee: Biotech Institute LLC, Los Angeles,
CA (US)
(*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
patent is extended or adjusted under 35
U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
(21) Appl. No.: 14/216,744
(22) Filed: Mar 17, 2014
(65) Prior Publication Data
US 2014/0287O68A1 Sep. 25, 2014

Patents Assigned to Biotech Institute LLC

Extracts of cbd and thc​

Patent number: 11528861

• Abstract: The invention provides compositions and methods for the breeding, production, processing and use of specialty Cannabis.
  
  

18. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% THC by weight.

19. The composition of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises at least 20.0% CBD by weight.

Referenced Cited

U.S. Patent Documents

4279824	July 21, 1981	McKinney
6403126	June 11, 2002	Webster et al.
6630507	October 7, 2003	Hampson et al.
7968594	June 28, 2011	Guy et al.
9095554	August 4, 2015	Lewis
9370164	June 21, 2016	Lewis
9642317	May 9, 2017	Lewis et al.
20040049059	March 11, 2004	Mueller
20080103193	May 1, 2008	Castor et al.
20080241339	October 2, 2008	Mitchell et al.
20090035396	February 5, 2009	De Meijer
20100216872	August 26, 2010	Letzel et al.
20110098348	April 28, 2011	De Meijer
20120311744	December 6, 2012	Sirkowski
20130109747	May 2, 2013	Whittle
20140243405	August 28, 2014	Whalley
20140245494	August 28, 2014	Cohen
20140245495	August 28, 2014	Cohen
20140287068	September 25, 2014	Lewis et al.
20140298511	October 2, 2014	Lewis
20150359188	December 17, 2015	Lewis et al.
20150366154	December 24, 2015	Lewis et al.
20160324091	November 10, 2016	Lewis et al.
20170202170	July 20, 2017	Lewis et al.
20180064055	March 8, 2018	Lewis et al.
20180284145	October 4, 2018	Giese et al.

Foreign Patent Documents

2923091	March 2015	CA
2459125	October 2009	GB
WO 2011/110866	September 2011	WO
WO 2014/145490	September 2014	WO
WO 2015/065544	May 2015	WO
WO 2016/105514	June 2016	WO
WO 2016/123160	August 2016	WO

Other references

• Booth, JK et al. 2017, PLoSONE; vol. 12, No. 3; pp. 1-20.
• Fischedick, J.T et al., Phytochemistry 2001, vol. 71; pp. 2058-2073.
• Russo, E., British Journal of Pharmacology, 201: vol. 163; pp. 1344-1364.
• Fischedick, J.T. et al., Phytochemistry 2010, vol. 71; pp. 2058-2073. (Year: 2010).
• Pure Analytics LLC Web Document; published online Dec. 2012; 5 pages. (Year: 2012).
• Russo, E.B., The British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) vol. 613, pp. 1344-1364. (Year: 2011).
• HealthyHempOil.com taken from the web, Jan. 4, 2014; 1 page. (Year: 2014).
• Gieringer, D., “Cannabis “Vaporization”: A Promising Strategy for Smoke Harm Reduction.” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics (2001); 1 (3-4): 153-170.
• Klingeren and Ham, “Antibacterial activity of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol”, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1976); 42 (1-2): 9-12.
• Pertwee, Rg., “Emerging strategies for exploiting cannabinoid receptor agonists as medicines.” Br J Pharmacol. (2009); 156 (3): 397-411.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Girl Scout Cookie (Patient Solutions) on Jun. 23, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/2014062818281O/http://analytical360.com/m/flowers/251990, 3 pages.
• Booth et al., “Terpene synthases from Cannabis sativa,” PLoS ONE (2017) 12(3): e0173911, 20 pages.
• Agilent Technologies, Inc. “Consideration for Selecting GC/MS or LC/MS for Metabiomics”, Feb. 24, 2007, 4 pages.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Critical Mass on Aug. 25, 2014, http://analytical360.com/m/expired/276599, 5 pages.
• Analytical 360 analysis of Sweet & Sour Widow CBD on Nov. 2, 2013. http://analytical360.eom/m/expired/131803, 4 pages.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Sweet n' Sour Widow on May 8, 2014, http://analytical360.com/m/expired/230612, 4 pages.
• Bertoli, A., et al., “Fibre hemp inflorescences: From crop-residues to essential oil production”, Industrial Crops and Products, Nov. 1, 2010, pp. 329-337, vol. 32, No. 3.
• Casano et al., “Variations in Terpene Profiles of Different Strains of Cannabis sativa L.” Acta Horticulturae, vol. 925, pp. 115-121, 2011.
• CBD Crew “About Us” Printed copy provided as published on Apr. 10, 2012. URL: http://cbdcrew.org/about-us/, 3 pages.
• CBD Crew “Varieties” printed copy as published on Mar. 20, 2012 URL: http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/, 2 pages.
• CBD Crew Analysis Report; (Critical Mass, Fundacion CANNA; Mar. 21, 2012), pp. 1-2, http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/cbd-critical-mass/.
• CBD Crew Sweet and Sour Widow analysis published Nov. 2, 2013, pp. 1-5. http://analytical360.com/m/expired/131803.
• CBD Crew variety “Sweet and Sour Widow” retrieved from the internet: https://web.archive.org/web/20120409021918/http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/cbd-sweet-and-sour-widow/, published on Apr. 9, 2012, retrieved on Mar. 10, 2017, 2 pages.
• CBD Crew Web Pub; (Critical Mass sample available from Northwest Canna Connection; Feb. 26, 2014, pp. 1-5. http://analytical360.com/m/expired/197158.
• CBD-crew front page on Nov. 22, 2014. www.cbdcrew.org, 2 pages.
• De Meijer and Hammond, “The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (V): regulation of the propyl-/pentyl cannabinoid ratio, completion of a genetic model.” Euphytica (2016); 210: 291-307.
• De Meijer et al., 2003, “The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.” Genetics, 163: 335-346.
• De Meijer et al., 2005, “The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (II) Cannabigerol Predominant Plants.” Euphytica, 145:189-198.
• De Meijer et al., 2009, “The Inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (III) Variation in Cannabichromene Proportion”, Euphytica, 165:293-311.
• De Meijer et al., 2009, “The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (IV) Cannabinoid-Free Plants”, Euphytica, 168:95-112.
• Fischedick, J. et al., “Metabolic fingerprinting of Cannabis sativa L., cannabinoids and terpenoids for chemotaxonomic and drug standardization purposes” Phytochemistry 2010, vol. 71., pp. 2058-2073.
• G. of Vancouver Island Seed Company, “How to make Clones”, Cannabis Culture Magazine published on Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2009, 58 pages. Available online at http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/how-make-clones.
• Halent Laboratories “Test Results for Dougie's Farm H0-21”, Test ID# 2960-1, Feb. 14, 2013, 5 pages.
• Halent Labs Chemical Analysis for “Pineapple Purps” retrieved from the internet: http://steephilllab.com/thcv-the-sports-car-of-cannabinoids/, retrieved on Mar. 17, 2017, 1 page.
• International PCT Search Report for PCT/US2014/030267, dated Nov. 7, 2014, 6 pages.
• International PCT Search Report for PCT/US2014/046694, dated Jan. 5, 2015, 7 pages.
• International Preliminary Reporton Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/030267 dated Sep. 15, 2015, 10 pages.
• International Preliminary Reporton Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/046694 dated May 3, 2016, 11 pages.
• Kojoma, M. et al., “DNA polymorphisms in the tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase gene in “drug-type” and “fiber-type” Cannabis sativa L”, Forensic Science International, Jun. 2, 2006, pp. 132-140, vol. 159, No. 2-3, Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.
• McPartland and Russo 2001 “Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts: Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts”, Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics vol. 1, No. 3/4,2001, pp. 103-132.
• Pertwee, Rg. 2008 “The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids: Δ9 tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and Δ9tetrahydrocannabivarin” Br. J Pharmacol. 153(2): 199-215.
• Russo and Guy, “A tale of two cannabinoids: the therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol”, Medical Hypothesis, 2006, 66:234-246).
• Russo, E.B., “Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects” The British Journal of Pharmacology, 2011, pp. 1344-1364, vol. 163.
• Satyal, P. et al. “Chemotyping and Determination of Antimicrobial Insecticidal, and Cytotoxic Properties of Wild Grown Cannabis saliva from Nepal” Journal of Medicinally Active Plants, Dec. 2014, vol. #3, Issue 1, pp. 9-16.
• Seedsman Listing of “Sweet and Sour Widow”, on May 21, 2013, http://web.archive.org/web/20130521...com/en/cbd-sweet-n-sour-widow-regular-5-seeds, 3 pages.
• Solon, Olivia, “Medical Marijuana Without the High”, Jul. 5, 2012, retrieved from the internet: www.wired.com.
• Steep Hill Halent Cannabis Analytics and Research: “Dougs Varin Decarb THCV Std.”, Steep Hill Labs, Inc., Reported Jun. 10, 2014, retrieved from the internet: http://steephilllab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DougsVarinKief_Decarbed.pdf, retrieved on Mar. 17, 2017, 3 pages.
• Steep Hill Halent Cannabis Analytics and Research: “Dougs Varin THCVA Std.”, Steep Hill Labs, Inc., Reported Jun. 10, 2014, retrieved from the internet: http://steephilllab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DougsVarinKief.pdf, retrieved on Mar. 17, 2017, 3 pages.
• The Werc Shop Terpene Profiling Services, Aug. 26, 2012. http://web.archive.org/web/20120826071723/http://thewercshop.com/services/terpene-profiling-services, 4 pages.
• Van Bakel, et al. “The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa”, Genome Biology, Oct. 20, 2011, p. R102, vol. 12, No. 10, Biomed Central Ltd., London, GB.
• Waksmundzka-Hajnos and Monika, “High Performance Liquid Chromatography in Phytochemical Analysis (Chromatograhic Science Series).” Published May 14, 2012. p. 582 provided.
• Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/030267 dated Nov. 7, 2014, 9 pages.
• Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/046694 dated May 1, 2015, 10 pages.
• “CBD Strains From Europe Grown out in California.” O'Shaughnessy's News Services (Winter/Spring 2013), The Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice. Also available online at: www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PCBD-update-22-26.pdf.
• “CBD: A Patient's Guide to Medical Cannabis.” by Leinow & Birnbaum, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California (2017), Chapter 9 Alphabetized list of High-CBD Strains, pp. 252-252, 10 pages.
• “Terpenoids, ‘minor’ cannabinoids contribute to ‘entourage effect’ of Cannabis-based medicines.” by Gardner, O'Shaughnessy's News Services, The Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice (Autumn 2011), p. 1 and 19-21, 4 pages, Available online at http://www.beyondthc.com/osr-shop/.
• “The Release of Omrita Rx3.” O'Shaughnessy's News Service (Autumn 2011), p. 15, 1 page, Also available online at http://www.beyondthc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/CBDiary2.pdf.
• CBD Crew Strain, “CBD Nordle” Available to the public on or before Aug. 14, 2013 and retrieved from the internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20130814133339/http://cbdcrew.org:80/varieties/cbdnordle/ 2 pages.
• Communication (“letter of protest”) to the Canadian Patent Office dated Jan. 25, 2018, in Canadian Application No. 2,911,168, 9 pages.
• Elsohly, M.A., et al., Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1984; vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 500-514, 15 pages.
• Lab Results for “CBD-Nordle.” Available online at: http://cbdcrew.org/labresults/cbd-nordle/, Sep. 2014, 5 pages.
• Analytical 360, Test results for “Nordle”, Jun. 22, 2013 (Jun. 22, 2013), retrieved from the internet: http://archive.analytical360.com/m/archived/79871, retrieved on May 29, 2019.
• Analytical 360, Test results for “Nordle”, Jan. 8, 2014 (Aug. 1, 2014), retrieved from the internet: http://archive.analytical360.com/m/archived/166950, retrieved on May 29, 2019.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Girl Scout Cookie (Patient Solutions) on Jun. 23, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/20140628182810/http://analytical360.com/m/flowers/251990, 3 pages.
• Analytical 360 Analysis of Omrita Rx on Feb. 20, 2014, http://archive.analytical360.com/m/archived/192732, 3 pages.
• Grotenhermen et al., “The therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids”, Dtsch Arztebl Int., vol. 109, No. 29-30, pp. 495-501, 2012.
• Hillig, “A chemotaxonomic analysis of terpenoid variation in Cannabis,” Biochemical Systematics and Ecology (2004), 32:875-891.
• Okumura et al., “Terpinolene, a component of herbal sage, downregulates AKT1 expression in K562 cells”, Oncology Letters, vol. 3, pp. 321-324, 2012.

Patent History

Patent number: 11528861
Type: Grant
Filed: Oct 27, 2017
Date of Patent: Dec 20, 2022
Patent Publication Number: 20180064055
Assignee: Biotech Institute, LLC (Westlake Village, CA)
Inventors: Mark Anthony Lewis (Ventura, CA), Michael D Backes (Los Angeles, CA), Matthew W Giese (Columbus, OH)
Primary Examiner: Russell Kallis
Application Number: 15/795,904

Classifications

International Classification: A01H 6/28 (20180101); A01H 5/02 (20180101); A01H 1/04 (20060101); A01G 22/67 (20180101); A01H 5/12 (20180101); A01H 4/00 (20060101);