In a recent case featuring the United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., questions surrounding attorney’s fees in relation to inequitable conduct and conflict of interest have been brought to the forefront. This case looks back at the initial filing of a lawsuit by UCANN against Pure Hemp. The suit, which was lodged in the District of Colorado in July 2018, accused Pure Hemp of infringing the ’911 patent named “Cannabis Extracts and Methods of Preparing and Using the Same.
The case was stipulated to be dismissed in 2021, but the specter of attorney’s fees remains hanging. On April 14, 2021, Pure Hemp filed a move requesting an award of attorney fees, pointing towards the statutes 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. These legal provisions help to contextualize the pivot of this case and its implications for similar cases in the future.
To delve further into the intricacies of this case, click here to read the full analysis by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
This case brings an interesting perspective to ongoing discussions on conflict of interest defenses and attorney fees. Not only does it shed light on the cost implications of prolonged litigations, but also the ethical validity of conduct within legal settings. The outcome could potentially set a precedent for future cases on related themes.
Given the increasingly global application of patent laws and the evolving nature of intellectual property rights, particularly in industries like cannabis, these developments hold significance for legal professionals working in corporate environments.