Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 MAY 2023

Pure Hemp Prevails, But Unexceptional Case Dooms Pure Hemp's Attorneys' Fee Request

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In United Cannabis, Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., No. 22-1363 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Colorado decision denying Pure Hemp's...

United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Soniya Shah
Soniya Shah
Elizabeth Ferrill
Elizabeth Ferrill
Author LinkedIn connections

In United Cannabis, Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., No. 22-1363 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Colorado decision denying Pure Hemp's motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions.

United Cannabis filed suit against Pure Hemp for patent infringement in July 2018. The case was stayed in April 2020 when United Cannabis filed for bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy petition was dismissed, the parties entered a stipulation through which United Cannabis's infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice. The stipulation was silent with respect to attorneys' fees. Pure Hemp later filed a motion for attorney's fees, which the district court denied.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the district court erred in finding that Pure Hemp was not a prevailing party. The Court explained that Pure Hemp was the prevailing party because it successfully rebuffed United Cannabis's lawsuit and,

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed A Month. Now What?

The House has passed a short-term funding bill postponing the federal ban on hemp-derived THC products from November 12th to December 11th. With comprehensive legislation unlikely before the new deadline and competing interests from cannabis sellers, alcohol producers, and state regulators creating policy gridlock, the future of intoxicating hemp products remains uncertain as midterm elections approach.
United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Harris Sliwoski
Harris Sliwoski
Article

IRC Section 280E And Cannabis Tax Planning: Recent Developments And Practical Considerations

The landscape surrounding Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code continues to evolve with President Trump's Executive Order on medical marijuana rescheduling, advancing litigation in New Mexico Top Organics v. Commissioner, and shifting regulatory signals. Cannabis taxpayers face critical decisions about taking "non-280E" positions on their tax returns while the IRS maintains its enforcement stance and the U.S. Tax Court case addressing common arguments remains pending.
United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Foley Hoag LLP
Foley Hoag LLP
Article

"Marijuana" Rescheduling Delayed, Again. What It Could Mean, And What Comes Next

The DEA's marijuana rescheduling hearing has been unexpectedly stayed following a motion to admit a new GAO report examining agency scheduling procedures. With the proceeding on hold and the medical marijuana Schedule III order facing legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit, the cannabis industry's path to federal tax relief through rescheduling has become increasingly uncertain.
United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Harris Sliwoski
Harris Sliwoski
Article

Updates On Export Controls Impacting AI & Advanced Computing

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security issued guidance on May 31, 2026, clarifying licensing requirements for advanced computing items and AI technologies. The guidance maintains export restrictions for entities in certain countries while providing limited relief for data center operators, though questions remain about future regulatory direction. Companies must now strengthen their compliance programs and supply-chain due diligence as BIS continues to prioritize national security
GlobalInternational Law
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Federal Circuit Affirms Written Description Support, Vacates Mooted Non-Obviousness Finding

The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's validity findings for Exelixis's Salt Patents related to its cancer drug Cabometyx, holding that disclosure of chemical name, formula, and crystalline structure provided adequate written description support. However, the Court dismissed MSN's appeal and vacated the non-obviousness finding for the '349 Patent after Exelixis unilaterally dismissed its cross-appeal, preventing MSN from opposing the adverse judgment.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court

On May 27, 2026, the Superior Court of California held that subdivision (a) of California Penal Code § 638.51 does not apply to software on commercial websites. Plaintiff Brian Blaker sued Defendant NetScout, Inc., alleging the Defendant had violated § 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by implementing a software development kit (SDK) on its website.
United StatesPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Who Is A “Consumer?” The Supreme Court Takes Up The Video Privacy Protection Act

The Supreme Court will decide whether subscribing to any good or service from a video provider—such as a newsletter—makes someone a "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act, or whether only subscriptions to audiovisual content qualify. The case involves allegations that a website disclosed a user's video-viewing history through Facebook tracking pixels after the user signed up for an online newsletter, creating a circuit split on how broadly the VPPA's consumer protections should apply.
United StatesPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

Recent patent litigation orders from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reveal critical claim construction disputes and discovery rulings that shape the boundaries of patent enforcement. How do courts balance claim definiteness requirements with the practical realities of patent scope, and what standards govern third-party discovery in indirect infringement cases?
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU And UK Data Protection Decisions

Recent EU and UK court decisions have reshaped the landscape of data protection compliance, clarifying critical boundaries around consent, data subject rights, cybersecurity obligations, and children's privacy. These rulings demonstrate that organizations must move beyond formal compliance to embed proportionality, accountability, and risk-based decision-making into their data processing activities, even when disclosures are legally required or supported by valid legal bases.
GlobalPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Finding A Lack Of Bona Fide Use, TTAB Affirms Cancellation Of Everwise Credit Union Registration Under The Lanham Act’s Reexamination Procedure

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's precedential decision in In re Everwise Credit Union examines whether a credit union's use of its mark constituted bona fide commercial use or merely token use designed to reserve trademark rights. The case centers on whether Everwise Credit Union had actually used its mark in commerce by the deadline to file its Statement of Use, or whether the mark's appearance on its website was simply a placeholder for a future rebrand that occurred two months later.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Staying True To The Specification: Federal Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Based On Unsupported Claim Constructions

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP