Pharmaceutical companies staking out patent territory in advance of cannabis legalization
Major multi-national pharmaceutical companies have begun building Canadian IP portfolios around cannabis as an alternative therapy, anticipating nationwide legalization of the plant in October 2018.
According to a recent joint report from two cannabis-industry analytics firms, pharmaceutical companies are leading the race to stake out territory in the booming cannabis research and development field through patent protection. "Big Pharma" accounts for seven of the top-10 holders of cannabis patents in Canada.
As part of Canada’s pre-legalization “Green Rush” brand-side pharmaceutical companies including Merck, Sanofi-Aventis, and Pfizer have sought patents on medicinal applications of cannabis for a variety of ailments currently treated with “conventional” prescription drugs. It is expected that increasing openness to cannabis as an alternative treatment, driven by legalization, will have a multi-billion-dollar impact on pharmaceutical sales.
In the recreational sphere, while plants including cannabis are not themselves patentable, cannabis cultivators may seek protections under the federal Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. This act allows breeders to obtain exclusive IP rights to a particular strain of a plant, including the rights to import, export, license, and copy the strain.
For companies seeking more extensive IP protection, cannabis-related processes, delivery methods, and secondary products such as cannabis derivatives, edibles, and paraphernalia may be patentable. Like any other patent, cannabis-related inventions within or outside the medicinal field would have to meet the core requirements of the Patent Act – novelty, utility, and inventiveness.
Finally, start-ups operating in the burgeoning cannabis space may choose to seek trademark protection like any other consumer-facing company.
For more information on any of the above information, please contact any member of our IP or Cannabis Groups.
Author: Wes Dutcher-Walls, 2018/2019 Articling Student-at-law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@iambobnelson
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…