Rand Paul Pushes Hemp Banking Amendment
Federal authorities would no longer be able to punish banks that work with businesses that grow, process and sell hemp products under an amendment up for consideration in the U.S. Senate this week.
The measure, submitted on Tuesday by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), seeks to include the protections for hemp banking in the large-scale Farm Bill, which is currently on the Senate floor. The legislation, as currently drafted, already includes provisions that would legalize the cultivation of the non-psychoactive marijuana cousin.
“American consumers are buying hemp but thanks to heavy-handed regulation, the only option at scale is importing hemp from foreign producers,” he said in a Senate floor speech on Wednesday. “Enough is enough.”
It is unclear if Paul’s amendment will receive a floor vote.
See the full text of the new hemp banking amendment below:
______
SA 3198. Mr. PAUL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to provide for the reform and continuation of
agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture
through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle F of title XI, add the following:
SEC. 11618. SECURE AND FAIR BANKING ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Safe Harbor for Depository Institutions.--A Federal
banking regulator may not--
(1) terminate or limit the deposit insurance or share
insurance of a depository institution under the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.) or the Federal
Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) solely because the
depository institution provides or has provided financial
services to a hemp-related legitimate business;
(2) prohibit, penalize, or otherwise discourage a
depository institution from providing financial services to a
hemp-related legitimate business or to a State or Indian
tribe that exercises jurisdiction over hemp-related
legitimate businesses;
(3) recommend, incentivize, or encourage a depository
institution not to offer financial services to the owner,
operator, or an individual that is an account holder of a
hemp-related legitimate business, or downgrade or cancel
financial services offered to an account holder of a hemp-
related legitimate business solely because--
(A) the account holder later becomes a hemp-related
legitimate business; or
(B) the depository institution was not aware that the
account holder is the owner or operator of a hemp-related
legitimate business; and
(4) take any adverse or corrective supervisory action on a
loan to an owner or operator of--
(A) a hemp-related legitimate business solely because the
business owner or operator is a hemp-related business without
express statutory authority, as in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) real estate or equipment that is leased or sold to a
hemp-related legitimate business solely because the owner or
operator of the real estate or equipment leased or sold the
equipment or real estate to a hemp-related legitimate
business.
(b) Protections Under Federal Law.--
(1) In general.--In a State, political subdivision of a
State, or Indian country that allows the cultivation,
production, manufacturing, transportation, display,
dispensing, distribution, sale, or purchase of hemp pursuant
to a law (including regulations) of the State, political
subdivision of the State, or the Indian tribe that has
jurisdiction over the Indian country, as applicable, a
depository institution and the officers, director, and
employees of the depository institution that provides
financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business may
not be held liable pursuant to any Federal law (including
regulations)--
(A) solely for providing the financial services pursuant to
the law (including regulations) of the State, political
subdivision of the State, or Indian tribe; or
(B) for further investing any income derived from the
financial services.
(2) Forfeiture.--A depository institution that has a legal
interest in the collateral for a loan made to an owner or
operator of a hemp-related legitimate business, or to an
owner or operator of real estate or equipment that is leased
or sold to a hemp-related legitimate business, shall not be
subject to criminal, civil, or administrative forfeiture of
that legal interest pursuant to any Federal law for providing
the loan or other financial services solely because the
collateral is owned by a hemp-related business.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
require a depository institution to provide financial
services to a hemp-related legitimate business.
(d) Requirements for Filing Suspicious Activity Reports.--
Section 5318(g) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Requirements for hemp-related businesses.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `financial service' means a financial
product or service, as defined in section 1002 of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12
U.S.C. 5481);
``(ii) the term `hemp' has the meaning given the term in
section 10111 of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018;
``(iii) the term `hemp-related legitimate business' has the
meaning given the term in section 11618(e) of the Agriculture
and Nutrition Act of 2018;
``(iv) the term `Indian country' has the meaning given the
term in section 1151 of title 18; and
``(v) the term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe
List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
``(B) Reporting of suspicious transactions.--A financial
institution or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a
financial institution that reports a suspicious activity
related to a transaction by a hemp-related legitimate
business shall comply with appropriate guidance issued by the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Secretary shall
ensure that the guidance is consistent with the purpose and
intent of this paragraph and does not inhibit the provision
of financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business
in a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian
country that has allowed the cultivation, production,
manufacturing, transportation, display, dispensing,
distribution, sale, or purchase of hemp, or any other conduct
relating to hemp, pursuant to law or regulation of the State,
the political subdivision of the State, or Indian tribe that
has jurisdiction over the Indian country.''.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Company.--The term ``company'' means a partnership,
corporation, association, (incorporated or unincorporated),
trust, estate, cooperative organization, State, or any other
entity.
(2) Depository institution.--The term ``depository
institution'' means--
(A) a depository institution as defined in section 3(c) of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c));
(B) a Federal credit union as defined in section 101 of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752); or
(C) a State credit union as defined in section 101 of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752).
(3) Federal banking regulator.--The term ``Federal banking
regulator'' means each of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National
Credit Union Administration, or any Federal agency or
department that regulates banking or financial services, as
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(4) Financial service.--The term ``financial service''
means a financial product or service, as defined in section
1002 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481).
(5) Hemp.--The term ``hemp'' has the meaning given the term
in section 10111.
(6) Hemp product.--The term ``hemp product'' means any
article which contains hemp, including an article which is a
concentrate, an edible, a tincture, a hemp-infused product,
or a topical.
(7) Hemp-related legitimate business.--The term ``hemp-
related legitimate business'' means a manufacturer, producer,
or any person or company that--
(A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B)
pursuant to a law established by a State or a political
subdivision of a State; and
(B)(i) participates in any business or organized activity
that involves handling hemp or hemp products, including
cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, transporting,
displaying, dispensing, distributing, or purchasing hemp or
hemp products; or
(ii) provides--
(I) any financial service, including retirement plans or
exchange traded funds, relating to hemp; or
(II) any business services, including the sale or lease of
real or any other property, legal or other licensed services,
or any other ancillary service, relating to hemp.
(8) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code.
(9) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
(10) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a
person or company who manufactures, compounds, converts,
processes, prepares, or packages hemp or hemp products.
(11) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person or
company who plants, cultivates, harvests, or in any way
facilitates the natural growth of hemp.
(12) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any territory
or possession of the United States.
______
If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Senators Vote To Block Marijuana Banking Amendment
A powerful U.S. Senate panel has moved to block an amendment to let marijuana businesses store their profits in banks.
In a 21 – 10 vote, the Senate Appropriations Committee tabled an amendment on Thursday that would have shielded financial institutions that open accounts for cannabis businesses that are complying with state laws from being punished by federal regulatory authorities.
Current policy, which forces many marijuana businesses to operate on an all-cash basis, is “a big problem because it’s great for organized crime, it’s great for money laundering, it’s great for theft and larceny, it’s great for cheating on taxes, it’s great for cheating on your payroll,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the sponsor of the measure, said in a brief debate before the vote. “We’re really facilitating crime by not enabling the banking industry to provide basic services.”
Several Democratic members of the Senate panel who said they otherwise support the ability of marijuana businesses in a growing number of states to access financial services objected on procedural grounds to the measure, which Merkley was seeking to attach to the Fiscal Year 2019 Financial Services and General Government funding bill.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), for example, said that he wanted to keep spending legislation “free of new controversial policy riders” and that a more appropriate forum would be an authorizing committee that sets banking laws.
Nonetheless, Leahy himself has sponsored appropriations amendments to prevent the Justice Department from interfering with state medical cannabis laws instead of insisting that those measures go through the authorizing Judiciary Committee.
Also voicing opposition to the move were Sens. Christopher Coons (D-DE) and Jon Tester (D-MT).
“I’ve supported it in the past and I think it’s different today,” Tester said. “It adds a level of confusion to the folks who are out there doing business,” adding that it would give a “false hope” to cannabis providers because it only deals with the Department of the Treasury and not the Justice Department.
“Do I think these businesses ought to be able to bank?” he said. “Absolutely.”
The same committee approved similar amendments in and by votes of 16 to 14.
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who is a vocal legalization opponent, also spoke up. “This amendment would [make] a confusing situation for banks and pot shops around the country…more confusing,” he said.
Legalization advocates were upset by the committee’s move.
“The Senate Appropriations Committee chose to bury its head in the sand rather than make it easier for licensed and regulated marijuana businesses to operate safely, transparently or effectively,” Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, said in an interview. “It’s absurd.”
Don Murphy of the Marijuana Policy Project added, “Today was a victory for the drug cartels and anyone else who benefits from billions of dollars of unaccountable, untraceable and unbankable cash.”
Ongoing federal marijuana prohibition and related money laundering laws have made many banks reluctant to work with cannabis businesses.
Nonetheless, new Treasury Department data first reported last week shows that a steadily increasing number of financial institutions have been opening accounts for marijuana growers, processors, retailers and related outfits even as Attorney General Jeff Sessions makes anti-cannabis moves and comments.
The House of Representatives passed a cannabis banking amendment in 2014 by a vote of 231 to 192, but the provision was not included in final spending legislation that year. Congressional Republican leadership has since blocked floor votes on cannabis measures.
Several Trump administration officials have indicated they would like to see a resolution to the issue.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last week that the gap between state and federal cannabis laws “puts federally chartered banks in a very difficult situation.”
“It would great if that could be clarified,” he said.
“I assure you that we don’t want bags of cash,” he testified before a House committee in February. “We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe.”
In another hearing he said that fixing cannabis banking issues is at the “top of the list” of his department’s concerns.
And Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairwoman said on Tuesday that she’s asked staff to think about how to address marijuana banking issues, but that for now the agency’s hands are “somewhat tied.”
Despite the defeat of the banking amendments in House and Senate committees this month, there has been a recent string of other developments demonstrating marijuana’s political momentum.
Earlier this month, President Trump voiced support for bipartisan congressional legislation that would allow states to enact marijuana legalization laws without federal interference. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is leading the charge for hemp legalization, with the support of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
See the full text of the marijuana banking amendment as considered by senators below:
“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or Guam, to penalize a financial institution solely because the institution provides financial services to an entity that is a manufacturer, producer, or a person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling marijuana or marijuana products and engages in such activity pursuant to a law established by a State or a unit of local government.”
See the full committee roll call vote on tabling the amendment (an Aye vote is to block the measure from advancing):
- Mitch McConnell, Kentucky – Aye by proxy
- Lamar Alexander, Tennessee – Aye
- Susan Collins, Maine – Aye
- Lisa Murkowski, Alaska – Aye
- Lindsey Graham, South Carolina – Aye by proxy
- Roy Blunt, Missouri – Aye
- Jerry Moran, Kansas – Aye by proxy
- John Hoeven, North Dakota – Aye
- John Boozman, Arkansas – Aye
- Shelly Moore Capito, West Virginia – Aye
- James Lankford, Oklahoma – Aye
- Steve Daines, Montana – No
- John Kennedy, Louisiana – Aye
- Marco Rubio, Florida – Aye by proxy
- Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi – Aye
- Richard Shelby, Alabama, Chairman – Aye
- Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member – Aye
- Patty Murray, Washington – No by proxy
- Dianne Feinstein, California – No by proxy
- Dick Durbin, Illinois – Aye by proxy
- Jack Reed, Rhode Island – Aye by proxy
- Jon Tester, Montana – Aye by proxy
- Tom Udall, New Mexico – No
- Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire – No by proxy
- Jeff Merkley, Oregon – No
- Chris Coons, Delaware – Aye
- Brian Schatz, Hawaii – No by proxy
- Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin – No
- Christopher Murphy, Connecticut – Aye by proxy
- Joe Manchin, West Virginia – No
- Chris Van Hollen, Maryland – No
If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
The number of banks that are willing to work with marijuana businesses is steadily climbing, even after the Department of Justice revoked protections for state cannabis laws, new federal data shows.
By the end of March, 411 banks and credit unions in the U.S. were “actively” operating accounts for marijuana businesses, according to a report from the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). That’s up more than 20% from when President Trump took office early last year.
While the number of financial institutions servicing cannabis growers, processors, retailers and related businesses dipped slightly in the two months immediately following U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s decision this January to revoke Obama-era Justice Department guidance protecting state marijuana laws, the total has since started to climb again.
A growing number of states are moving to allow cannabis for recreational or medical use, but federal prohibition remains unchanged, for now. As a result, banks that accept marijuana industry money run the risk of running afoul of U.S. money laundering and other laws.
Because of financial services providers’ reluctance to work with marijuana businesses, many are forced to operate on a cash-only basis, which makes them targets for robberies.
On Wednesday, a key congressional committee voted to defeat an amendment that would have protected banks that work with marijuana businesses from Treasury Department sanctions. If that measure were enacted into law, even more financial institutions would likely feel safer working with the cannabis industry.
The new data, covering the last quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of this year, was uploaded to FinCEN’s website last month and represents the two most recent releases in a set of periodic updates on marijuana banking. Earlier data released late last year also showed an increase in the number of financial institutions working with cannabis businesses.
In addition to providing new cannabis banking stats through March 31, the latest document has new language appearing to address the uncertainty caused by Sessions’s move to revoke previous Justice Department guidance on marijuana enforcement.
“The SAR reporting structure laid out in the 2014 guidance remains in place,” the new update says, referring to suspicious activity reports that banks working with marijuana businesses must file. “FinCEN will continue to work closely with law enforcement and the financial sector to combat illicit finance, and we will notify the financial sector of any changes to FinCEN’s SAR reporting expectations.”
In 2014, under the Obama administration, FinCEN issued guidance to banks about how to serve the marijuana industry without running afoul of federal regulators. The memo, which requires financial services providers to regularly file reports on customers with cannabis accounts, was meant to provide clarity and assurances to banks. But many have remained reluctant to work with marijuana businesses because ongoing federal cannabis prohibition could trigger money laundering laws and other risks.
On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that the current gap between federal and state marijuana laws “puts federally chartered banks in a very difficult situation.”
“It would great if that could be clarified,” he said. “Our mandate has nothing to do with marijuana, so we just would love to see it clarified.”
“I assure you that we don’t want bags of cash,” he said before a House committee this year. “We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe.”
In separate Capitol Hill testimony, he said that solving cannabis businesses’ financial services problems is at the “top of the list” of his concerns.
Pending legislation to change federal laws on banking for marijuana businesses has record support in Congress. A House bill authored by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) has 94 cosponsors, while companion Senate legislation from by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has 18 senators signed on.
If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
What Cannabis Entrepreneurs Need To Know About Intellectual Property
Marijuana industry leaders stay busy developing business plans, building brands, inventing technologies, creating supply chains, cultivating new strains, hiring employees, securing funding, and obtaining licenses. But it is essential for cannabis entrepreneurs to understand intellectual property (IP) rights and the benefits they can provide—and, perhaps most importantly, the potential problems that may occur when IP rights are ignored or overlooked for too long.
Because of ongoing federal cannabis prohibition, businesses in this space face additional IP challenges that don’t exist in other industries. This article will give you a quick sense of what you need to know in order to protect your rights.
Fundamentally, the law gives IP owners the right to exclude. Effectively acquired IP rights can give cannabis entrepreneurs the legal footing to prevent competitors from ripping off their brands, their technologies, their designs, and their secrets. In the cannabis space, where the law excluded so many for so long, it may seem untoward to engage in exclusionary practices, but IP is a very different animal than prohibition. As the cannabis industry continues to grow and established companies enter the market, early-acquired IP rights will prove indispensable. Beyond offering market protections and a competitive edge, IP rights can be licensed to generate additional recurring revenue, help attract investment, and enhance valuation for exits.
Without a clear understanding of the myriad types of IP protection available—and the benefits, potential pitfalls, and resource requirements of each—many entrepreneurs view obtaining effective IP protection as a daunting task. And unless an experienced IP attorney is retained, they are not wrong. Nonetheless, IP rights should be considered early and often in any business venture, especially in a nascent industry like this one. Those who procrastinate this critical business task risk permanently forfeiting rights, and may sometimes find IP roadblocks placed in their path by competitors who beat them in a race to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that they didn’t even know they were competing in.
Protecting Your Brand:
Trademarks identify the source of a product or service, and serve to protect the goodwill and market recognition that a business has developed. Most commonly, a trademark is embodied in the name of a product, service, or business, its logo, or a slogan. Trademarks do not have a set expiration date, but generally remain enforceable so long as they are being used in commerce. However, to maximize rights (and avoid getting sued), it is important to search to make sure your proposed brand is “clear” prior to using it in commerce and, once in use, to effectively control your brand in the marketplace.
Federally Registered Trademarks provide the strongest protection for your brand, and enable you to enforce your trademarks anywhere in the United States. Registration requires both legal “use in commerce” and a lack of “confusingly similar” trademarks in your business area. If you aren’t using your trademark in commerce yet, but intend to do so, an “Intent to Use” (“ITU”) application can preserve your rights until you actually begin legal commercial activity. Federally registered marks are denoted by the ® symbol. Having an experienced trademark attorney file an application on your behalf typically costs $1,000-$1,500, and can help you maximize protections and avoid pitfalls.
Because marijuana is still federally illegal, the requirement for legal “use in commerce” presents a unique challenge for cannabis entrepreneurs seeking federal trademark protection. There are two proven strategies. First, you can trademark around the edges: While federal trademarks on cannabis, itself, may be unavailable, trademarks for most ancillary products and services can be obtained. For example, federal trademark registration is available for products and services supporting consumption and cultivation, and for sales of legal medical herbs.
Second, you can play the long game, and file an ITU claiming a bona fide intent to use a trademark in legal commerce in the future—i.e., anticipating that federal legalization will convert your commercial activity to legal “use in commerce.” For example, the is using this ITU strategy to play the long game. As long as appropriate extensions of time are filed with the USPTO every six months, an ITU application can survive up to three years. So, playing the long game is a bet that federal legalization will occur before it expires.
State Registered Trademarks: If federal trademark registration is unavailable, it may be worthwhile to consider registering your trademarks in the states where you conduct business. Virtually all states permit some form of state-level trademark registration. It should be noted, however, that a state-level trademark registration may typically only be effectively enforced within the boundaries of the registering state. For example, if you had a California trademark registration, you could not use it to prevent a competitor from using your trademark in Colorado. State registered trademarks may be used to fight “cybersquatters.”
While virtually all states have a “legal use” requirement, such requirement does not prohibit trademark registration in states where cannabis is legal for recreation and/or medical purposes. However, such requirement still means that your business must already be engaged in legal commerce—and is in compliance with relevant state cannabis licensing requirements—before applying for registration. Unfortunately, most states do not allow “intent to use” trademark applications. (Washington State is a notable exception.) Thus, even in a legalization state, a prospective cannabis grower might not be able to begin securing a state-level trademark registration until after she is granted a grow license in that state.
Common Law Trademarks: Even without any registration, your brand, if actually used in commerce, may retain some protection. Common law trademarks are often designated by the TM symbol, which merely signifies that the brand owner thinks that it has a valid trademark. It is, however, notoriously difficult to enforce common law trademarks. Accordingly, businesses that save money on the front end by skipping trademark registration may regret it later if a competitor subsequently tries to rip off their brand.
Copyright Registration for Logos: In addition to trademark protection, brand logos may be protected by copyright law. Through a copyright, a logo may be protected as a work of artistic expression rather than as a brand. While copyright registration is not strictly necessary, it provides for robust enforcement options. Additionally, the US Copyright Office allows you to register copyrights online for a small fee.
Protecting Your Technology:
Utility Patents protect an invention, and grant inventors the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling it for up to 20 years. In the cannabis space, utility patents can protect, for example, growing apparatuses and methods, extraction techniques and chemical compositions, smoking and vaping devices, software, and even plants themselves (see below). Legal use in commerce is not required, but the USPTO carefully examines each patent application to ensure that the claimed invention is adequately described, novel (new), and nonobvious. In the US, a utility patent application must be filed within one year of the first public disclosure or offer for sale of the invention. Entrepreneurs who miss this deadline permanently forfeit their ability to secure a patent. Obtaining a high quality, enforceable patent typically requires retaining an experienced patent attorney to prepare and file the application. This can cost $8,000 and up, depending on complexity of the invention.
Provisionals: Provisional patent applications may be used to delay expending these considerable financial resources for up to one year—often enough time to assess whether your invention has a good shot at commercial success. Essentially, a provisional holds your place in line for 12 months. It can protect your rights if a competitor files for a similar patent or sells a similar product during that time, and help you avoid missing the one-year deadline for filing after selling or marketing your own invention. Using a provisional application requires filing a corresponding nonprovisional utility application within the 12 months. If a corresponding application is not filed, the provisional simply expires and its contents remain secret. While provisionals have few formal requirements and are sometimes filed by inventors without attorney assistance, cannabis entrepreneurs would be wise to at least consult with an experienced patent attorney before filing to avoid pitfalls that can render a provisional ineffective. Engaging a patent attorney to prepare and file a provisional application can cost around $3,000 and up.
Protecting Your Cannabis Strains:
Utility Patents: The USPTO has confirmed that cannabis plants may be protected by utility patents. To date, issued cannabis utility patents have claimed plants with specific chemical profiles.
Plant Patents: Plant patents are a distinct form of IP protection that protects asexually reproduced plants, and the USPTO has issued at least one cannabis plant patent. Similar to utility patents, plant patents have a life of up to 20 years, and the invented strain must be both new and nonobvious. Additionally, the one-year filing requirement still applies, so a grower loses rights to file for plant patents for any cannabis strain that he sold more than 365 days ago. Finally, growers should be aware that plant patents are sometimes considered to have less value because they are directed to a single plant genome, rendering the right to exclude both narrow and hard to enforce.
Plant Variety Protection Certificates are issued by theUS Department of Agriculture (USDA), and can provide their owners exclusive rights to seeds of a new crop for 20 years. To date, no cannabis certificates have been issued. The reasons are two fold: First, a seed deposit is required, and the USDA, a federal agency, has refused to accept any. Second, certificates protect only new and distinct sexually-reproduced plants that have stable progeny. Virtually all cannabis strains of value fall outside of these requirements.
Protecting Your Designs:
Design Patents: Design Patents protect ornamental designs for functional items. For example, while the functional aspects of a vaping device may be protected by a utility patent, the way it looks—or just specific aspects of its look—may be protected by a design patent. Design patents that claim only specific design elements are broader and may be easier to enforce. Cannabis entrepreneurs in the software space should note that design patents are increasingly used to protect GUIs, especially when it comes to animated user interfaces. The same basic rules of utility patents apply to design patents, except that design patents last for 14 years from issuance (rather than 20 years from filing) and provisionals are not available. Retaining an experienced patent attorney to prepare and file a design patent application can cost $1,500 – $2,500, largely depending on the quality of drawings already possessed.
Copyright: Copyright protection can be used to protect all manner of artistic expression, whether on websites, T-shirts, or cannabis-related products. While there is an area of overlap between design patents and copyrights, design patents may (if strategically prepared) be quite broad and therefore easier to enforce.
Protecting Your Business Secrets:
Trade secrets are very different from the other IP types discussed above. Your customer lists, older secret recipes, business plans, and similar proprietary information are often best protected by keeping them secret. Still, there is always a chance that a disgruntled former employee sells or reveals your secrets, an unscrupulous competitor hacks into your computer systems, or a contractor uses your data in an unauthorized manner. Although the law varies, virtually all states offer trade secret protections that can support or compensate you in such situations. Trade secret laws, however, are typically only effective if your business had already taken reasonable steps to protect its proprietary information. An experienced attorney should be counseled to ensure that your trade secret practices are adequate under your state’s law, but uniform best practices include having all employees and contractors sign agreements that outline authorized and unauthorized data uses, having reasonable network security, and never divulging your trade secrets outside of signed NDAs.
Conclusion:
As the cannabis industry continues to grow and attract new market entrants, effectively securing IP rights has become a critical business task. Entrepreneurs who fail to assess and pursue appropriate IP rights early in the business cycle do so at they own peril. While thinking about patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets may not seem as urgent as making payroll and growing your profit margin, failing to promptly secure IP rights may undercut your business in the future, allowing competitors to rip-off the successful aspects of your business.
About the author:
Larry Sandell is a registered patent attorney with Mei & Mark LLP and has a decade of experience in IP law. He focuses his practice on drafting and prosecuting patent applications, counseling clients on strategic IP matters, litigation, and appellate practice. Larry has a passion for advising start-ups and other innovative companies, and has argued in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and D.C. Circuit. In addition to his legal practice, he is the CEO and General Counsel for a start-up medical device company.
Before entering law school in 2005, Larry fought for marijuana law reform, serving as Assistant Director of State Policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. He ran a successful ballot initiative signature drive in Nevada in 2004, putting legalization on the 2006 ballot; worked on Nevada’s 2002 ballot initiative campaign; and coordinated medical marijuana lobbying efforts in state legislatures.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE
Please note that this article may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Prior results described on this article do not guarantee similar outcomes in future cases or transactions. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Mei & Mark LLP (818 18th St., NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20006), its clients, Marijuana MomentTM LLC, or any of their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
This content was originally published here.
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/39n3KFz
via IFTTT
Mga Komento
Mag-post ng isang Komento