• Categories
• Assignees
• Concluding Thoughts

 

The purpose of this analysis is to understand:

• What type of cannabis inventions are being patented?
• Who owns the cannabis patents?
• Which countries are patenting inventions in the US?
• Are the cannabis therapeutics being patented mostly natural or synthetically-derived?

I conducted a search of the US Patent and Trademark (USPTO) database for issued patents on cannabis. I was trying to keep the search relatively narrow, so I searched the following terms in either the abstract or business summary:

• Cannabis
• Marijuana
• Cannabinoid
• THC?
• CBD?
• CBG?

where the ? allows for other characters as a shorthand way of including, for example, THCA and THCV.

I limited the search to the abstract and business summary, and I didn’t include the full names of the cannabinoids (e.g., tetrahydrocannabinol), or any of the variations (e.g., D8, D9, D10). So, my search surely did not capture a significant number of cannabis patents. Nonetheless, using this search, I was able to download 10,138 patents. 

After eliminations due to

• Non-relevance to cannabis: The abbreviations THC, CBD, and CBG are used for other terms outside of cannabis
• Cannabis as prior art: Research on cannabis activity is recognized as tangential but not directly relevant for the patent at issue
• Abandoned/Expired: Cannabis patents that were abandoned or expired

I was left with 8,719 patents.

For the majority of patents, I was able to determine the basic subject matter of the patent for classification purposes using just the title. When the title wasn’t sufficient to understand the nature of the invention (several thousand patents), I read through the patent to determine both the subject matter and whether or not the patent was subject to a lifetime expiration or had been abandoned. Since I didn’t check all patents for active status, the database may include patents that have expired or have been abandoned.

Categories

Overview of Major Categories

I reviewed the patents and sorted them into categories based on my assessment of what the patents involve. The major categories I came up with for the patents in the database include:

• Ligands: Inventions involving substances, compositions, or formulations that bind to receptors or act on biological pathways
• Delivery: Inventions involving cannabis substances, compositions, or formulations delivered into the body through a specific form of use 
• Processing: Inventions involving the processing of cannabis substances
• Cultivation: Inventions involving the cultivation of cannabis plants
• Vaping: Inventions involving the vaporization or aerosolization of cannabis
• Detection: Inventions involving the detection of some phenomenon related to cannabis
• Smoking: Inventions involving the smoking of cannabis flower
• Data: Inventions involving the collection, transmission, processing, or analysis of information related to cannabis or cannabis businesses
• Harvesting: Inventions involving the harvesting, drying, or curing of cannabis plants
• Other: Inventions that don’t fit into any of the other categories

Figure 1 shows the number of patents in my database that fall into each of these categories.

Figure 1

 

Ligands

As seen in Figure 1, the largest category of patents by far is ligands, that is, formulations or composition that involve either cannabinoids or other substances that act on the endocannabinoid system (ECS).

Two primary questions I’m seeking to answer with this analysis are:

• Which companies are involved in patenting therapeutics involving the ECS? Is it the traditional pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) adding cannabis therapeutics to their offerings, is it new companies created to develop cannabis therapeutics, or is it universities and research institutions, which have historically filled Pharma’s pipelines? 
• Do the patents on therapeutics primarily involve natural (i.e., plant-based) cannabinoids, or do they involve synthetics? Pharma generally develop synthetics because they’re easier to take through the FDA-approval process, and once approved, they’re easier to produce consistently and at scale. Furthermore, synthetic ligands that act on the ECS don’t involve many of the problems and restrictions that cannabis researchers face when using cannabis (particularly THC) in their studies.

With these questions in mind, I further subdivided ligands patents into several subcategories:

• Cannabinoid Compositions: These include Inventions primarily involving “cannabinoids.” Many of the patents mentioned specific cannabinoids (e.g., THC or CBD), while other just the term “cannabinoid.” Technically, a cannabinoid may be synthetic (e.g., Dronabinolis synthetic THC), but with no further information to go on, I’m assuming they’re plant-derived.
• CBR Agonists/Antagonists: These include inventions primarily involving non-“natural” (i.e., cannabis-derived) ligands that act on cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and/or CB2, jointly, CBR).
• MJ/CBR Can Be Combined: These include inventions primarily involving other non-cannabis substances, but with which cannabinoids or CBR ligands may be combined to achieve a therapeutic effect. For example, patents for several weight loss therapeutics indicated the substance being patented may be combined with a CB1 antagonist (a la Rimonabant) for added effects.
• Treatment (SUD): These include treatments involving cannabis or the use of cannabis, the vast majority of which are for substance use disorders broadly defined (cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, smoking, etc.). There are a few patents for compositions that specifically treat cannabis use disorder; cannabis hyperemesis syndrome; or cannabis-induced highs, hangovers, or anxiety.
• ECS Modulator (Not CB1/CB2): These include inventions involving ligands that act on components of the ECS other than CB1 or CB2, such as FAAH or MAGL.
• May Act on CBR: These include inventions primarily involving other non-cannabis substances, systems, and pathways, but which may also act on CBRs.
• Synthetic Cannabinoids: These include inventions involving synthetic cannabinoids.

Figure 2 shows the number of patents that fall into each of these sub-categories. I was sure the largest category would be CBR synthetics, so I was surprised to see that the largest category of patents is, in fact, cannabinoid compositions. In truth, the cannabinoid composition category is even larger than that shown in Figure 2, because I separated out patents involving cannabinoid compositions that specified a form of ingestion or delivery. These are discussed next.

Figure 2

 

As an aside, in the Background section of patents, the inventor describes other treatments currently available to address the same issue as that addressed by the patent, why those treatments aren’t satisfactory, and why the patented invention is an improvement. The Background section also cites the mechanism of action drawn upon by other therapeutics as a means of validating the approach the patented invention is presenting. There were a lot of patents downloaded in my initial search that I eliminated from my analysis because cannabis was cited as being either a currently available therapeutic but with shortcomings (usually because it’s psychoactive or because it causes paranoia or other unwanted effects) or because its mechanisms of action validate the method being used in the patent at issue. The large number of citations of cannabis in these two contexts suggests that many researchers are indeed aware of the research on cannabis. Word is spreading.

Delivery

As noted, I separated out cannabinoid compositions that mentioned a specific form of delivery from other cannabinoid compositions that did not provide any such specification. Since entering the cannabis industry, I’ve suspected that forms of delivery directed at specific targets in the body would be a large growth area, and I’ve also been interested to see which different forms of delivery emerge. 

After classifying the patents, I determined that they could be further subdivided into those involving oral delivery and those involving non-oral (e.g., topical) delivery. 

Figure 3 shows the number of patents that fall into each of the oral delivery sub-categories. 

Regarding my keyword classifications, my choice of categories generally followed the terms used in the patents. The largest category is generic “oral,” followed by “emulsions.” While emulsions, beverages, (water) soluble formulations, oral liquids, and powders (generally soluble) could all probably be grouped together, they do have some nuances, so I kept the distinctions.

Notable are the large number of patents involving emulsions and soluble formulations. Recent advances in emulsion technologies have enabled cannabis beverages, which have proven to be one of the largest growth segments. I expect emulsions, together with the bioavailability they enable, to be a large area of future research.

Edibles are foods.

Notable patents included in the Oral Delivery category are those for oral pouches, which are generally held by tobacco companies.

Figure 3

 

Figure 4 shows the number of patents that fall into each of the non-oral delivery sub-categories. 

Cannabis Topicals were the largest category of non-oral delivery patents. At a distant second and third, there were a lot of patents on Transdermal and Patch products. 

A surprising area of patents — with 18 patents — is that for Wound dressings incorporating cannabinoids. Other interesting patents on non-oral forms of delivery include 2 each for cannabinoids Logs/Briquettes and Adult Toys. And there were also patents (1 each) for straws, tattoo ink, and wet wipes (in Other Non-Oral).

Figure 4

 

Processing

Figures 5 and 6 show the number of patents for different categories of processing cannabis. 

The largest category of patents by far involves Extraction of resin from cannabis biomass.

Notably, there are 30 patents on Converting one cannabinoid into another (e.g., CBD into D9 or D8). There are also 2 patents for creating THC-O acetate.

Also notable are the 16 patents or Remediation activities, for example, using heat, irradiation, ozone, “radiant energy,” or “radio frequency.”

Figure 5

 

Figure 6

 

Cultivation

Figures 7 and 8 show the number of patents for different categories of cultivating cannabis plants. 

The four largest categories of cultivation patents include patents on Plants; patents on Gene Editing of plants; patents on inventions that increase plant Yields, generally specific traits such as cannabinoids or terpenes; and inventions that minimize plant Pests (microbes, insects, etc.) or Fungus.

There are a good number of patents on cultivation-related Structures, for example, for organizing plants (e.g., trays) or supporting their structure (e.g., trellises, racks, etc.).

There are also a good number of patents on “Ponic” systems: hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic.

Also notable are patents on systems and methods to Monitor grow operations using sensors, cameras, drones, etc. 

Other Cultivation patents include, for example, those determining plant sex or involving growth cycles, plant classification systems, sterilization, photoperiods, etc. 

Finally, and not surprisingly, there is a patent on using cannabis plants as a means of remediating soil.

Figure 7

 

Figure 8

 

Vaping

Figure 9 shows the number of patents for different categories of vaping cannabis products. 

The Vaping category includes inventions involving the vaporization or aerosolization of cannabis.

Vaping devices comprised over half the patents in this category. Many of the devices are multi-purpose devices, that is, they can accommodate the vaporization or aerosolization of cannabis, tobacco/nicotine, terpenes, and/or essential oils.

The Consumables category includes consumables (substrates) used in vaping devices, and may be comprised of cannabis, tobacco, other herbs, terpenes, and/or flavorants.

The MJ Comp/Form category includes (oil-based) cannabinoid compositions or formulations for use in vaping devices. 

The Cartridges category includes patents on cartridges used in vaping devices.

There were also a good number of patents on specific Components of vaping devices, such as mouth pieces, heating elements, or charging devices.  

Heat Not Burn (HNB) is a relatively new category in tobacco involving heating tobacco products at lower temperatures than have been traditionally used to smoke tobacco. It’s the tobacco worlds equivalent of smoking vs. vaping. As with the vaporizers, the HNB devices can generally be used to consume tobacco, cannabis, or other herbs.

The Data category includes, for example, patents on systems for locating devices or controlling device security, dosing, or configurations. 

Figure 9

 

Detection

The Detection category involves some phenomenon related to cannabis. I first grouped these patents into:

• Those that detected cannabis use or biomarkers in people (Figure 10) vs.
• Those that detected a cannabis presence in products or environments (Figure 11).

Each of these categories can be further subdivided into patents involving: 

• What was tested (i.e., the input) vs. 
• What was being tested for (i.e., the output).

For patents involving the detection of cannabis in people, the largest category for what was being tested is Biological Samples, which generally accommodate various different body fluids, for example, one patent specifies “In some embodiments, the assay device further comprises a sample (e.g., urine, blood, serum, or spinal fluid sample)” (20220080405). In contrast other patents involve inventions that test a specific form of biological sample, such as Urine, Saliva, Blood, Hair, Sweat, etc. 

There are also a lot of patents involving inventions that tests peoples’ Breath for cannabis, many in the context of driving. 

Interestingly, there are several patents involving the detection of cannabinoid receptors for purposes of detecting the response of ligands to receptors (in the context of drug development) or detecting the presence or condition of cannabinoid receptors, in the context of diagnosing or treating disease.

Figure 10

 

For patents involving the detection of cannabis in products or the environment, the largest category for what was being tested is Product Samples. While some of the patents involve testing and detection only of cannabis, many accommodate the testing of various drugs or other substances. For example, one patent specifies “In specific embodiments, the self contained device of the invention is used to test for the presence of illicit drugs; biohazards; food toxins; biologicals; weapons; or explosives in a variety of samples” (20140227796).

While most of the patents involved detecting the presence of a substance, many tested for more specific information, such as Profiles of compounds, Concentration of THC (or other drugs), Microbes, Water Activity, etc. 

2 patents detected energy diversion:

An unfortunate reality of electric utility energy distribution is that electric energy is sometimes unlawfully diverted to avoid metering.

…

Because electric energy diversion is costly to electric energy utilities and may be linked to other criminal activity (e.g., clandestine marijuana grow operations), there is a need for quantifying and identifying sources of electric energy diversion. (20130151177)

And one patent was for a method of detecting hop latent viroid (HLVD) RNA.

Figure 11

 

Smoking

The Smoking category includes inventions involving the smoking of cannabis flower (Figure 12). Most of the inventions involve methods of or devices for rolling joints.

The Smoking subcategory is an “other” category for miscellaneous patents related to Smoking.

Patents involving Consumables include specific compositions for smoking. Fillers are substitutes for cannabis. 

Figure 12

 

Data

Figures 13 and 14 show the number of patents for Data. The Data category includes inventions involving the collection, transmission, processing, or analysis of information related to cannabis, cannabis use, or cannabis businesses.

The largest subcategory of Data patents involve Tracking, generally tracking of cannabis products through parts of the supply chain. The second largest subcategory involves Monitoring, many of which patents involve either monitoring vehicle use by cannabis consumers or the quantity of cannabis consumed by individuals. The ID Verify category involves methods for verifying the identities of people, e.g., for sales or access purposes. 

There are a good number of patents involving tracking and/or analyzing cannabis Patient Data, and there are also a good number of patents on cannabis product Recommendations systems. 

There are 17 patents on Platforms, for example, to host cannabis marketplaces, retail sales, financial trading, or patient interactions.

There are 16 patents involving the use of Internet of Things (IOT) to collect or transmit data, for example, associated with tracking patient use or effects from cannabis.

There are 6 patents involving methods for delivery cannabis products to homes, 2 of which involve drone delivery.

Figure 13

 

Figure 14

 

Harvesting

The Harvesting category (Figure 15) includes inventions involving the harvesting, drying, curing, or trimming of cannabis plants. 

Figure 15

 

Other

Figure 16 provides a breakdown of patents that do not fit into any of the other categories. 

There are many patents for various types of containers to store, transport, protect, etc. cannabis products

Notably, there are many patents involving methods of Synthesizing cannabinoids from non-cannabis sources, such as yeast, algae, “filamentous fungi”, e. coli, etc.

A number of patents involving Hemp found their way into my database. This represents only a small minority of patents on hemp that were captured through keyword searches on cannabis. A search of the patent database using the term “hemp” would yield significantly more patents.

There are a number of patents on apparatuses that dispense cannabis products.

Of course, there are many patents on cannabis Pipes, Bongs, and Dabbing mechanisms

There are a number of patents on inventions for Dosing precise amounts of cannabis.

There are a good number of patents on cannabis products for Animals, including therapeutics, supplements, food, chew toys, and litter.

There are patents detecting or neutralizing cannabis Odors.

There are patents on Lighters for use in smoking cannabis products.

There are 2 patents on Vehicles for use in transporting cannabis and there is a patent on a cannabis Placebo for use in clinical studies.

Figure 16

 

Assignees

Turning now to who owns the patents, patents can either be assigned to a company, generally an employer who paid for the inventor’s time and resources needed to generate the patent, to the inventor, or to a company that licensed the patent from the inventor or employer.

Distribution by Assignee

Of the patents in my database (Figure 17), 

• 18% are held by the inventor 
• 20% are held by assignees that hold only 1 cannabis patent in my database 
• 11% are held by assignees who hold 2 cannabis patents in my database
• 51% are held by assignees who hold 3 or more patents in my database.

5 companies each hold over 100 cannabis patents: 

• BASF, a German industrial company, holds 140 cannabis patents
• GW Pharma, a UK cannabis pharma company, holds 132 cannabis patents
• Nicoventures Trading (British American Tobacco), a UK tobacco company, holds 129 cannabis patents
• Sanofi-Aventis, a French pharma company, holds 117 cannabis patents
• Bayer, a German pharma company, holds 114 cannabis patents

Figure 17

 

Distribution by Country

Figure 18 provides patent counts by country of the assignee for assignees who hold 3 or more patents. 30 countries have assignees that hold 3 or more US patents on cannabis, while 8 countries have assignees that jointly hold 100 or more. 

For subsequent analyses, I aggregated the non-US patent holders into a single group, rest of world (RoW), to compare patent activity between US and foreign entities. As seen in Figure 18, the 10 largest foreign holders of US patents are the UK, Germany, Canada, Israel, France, Switzerland, Japan, Denmark, Australia, and the Netherlands.

Figure 18

 

US vs. RoW by Industry

I calculated the distributions of assignees and patents (Figures 20 – 22):

• For assignees who each hold 3 or more patents, 
• Partitioned into US and foreign (RoW) assignees,
• By industry (descriptions are presented in Figure 19)

Figure 19

 

Cannabis and Pharma companies hold the most patents. More cannabis patents are held by US Cannabis companies than those held by foreign companies. In contrast, foreign Pharma and Cannabis Pharma companies hold more patents than US companies. 

Figure 20

 

In Figure 21, we see that US and Foreign companies hold about the same number of patents, but the distributions vary somewhat by assignee industry. 

Figure 21

 

From Figure 22, in the US, Cannabis companies, Universities, Technology companies, and Other (Food and Packaging) companies hold more patents than their counterparts in other countries. In contrast, assignees in other countries in Cannabis Pharma, Pharma, and Industrial companies (mostly due to BASF’s large holdings) hold more patents than their counterparts in the US.

Figure 22

 

US vs. RoW by Category

I calculated the distributions of assignees and patents (Figure 23):

• For assignees who each hold 3 or more patents, 
• Partitioned into US and foreign (RoW) assignees,
• By category

US assignees holds more patents on Vaping (Philip Morris), Processing, and Detection, while foreign assignees hold more patents on Ligands (GW, Sanofi, Bayer, Glaxo) and Cultivation (BASF and Bayer).

Figure 23

 

By Country and Industry

Figure 24 presents patent counts by country and industry for assignees with 15 or more patents. Notably, but not surprisingly, US assignees hold patents across more categories than other countries. 

Figure 24

 

By Industry and Patent Category

Figures 25 and 26 (with the x-axis cut off at 200 patents to show more detail) show the distribution of patent counts for assignees with 3 or more patents by assignee industry and patent category. The results are generally what one would expect:

• Cannabis: Cannabis companies are the only group to hold patents in all the different categories.
• Cannabis Pharma: Cannabis Pharma companies hold mostly patents on Ligandsbut also a few on Delivery and Cultivation.
• Pharma: Cannabis companies hold mostly patents on Ligands and Delivery formulations, but they also hold some patents on Cultivation and even Processing.
• University: Universities hold mostly patents on Ligands, in keeping with their role in supplying Pharma pipelines.
• Research: None of the Research companies hold 3 or more cannabis patents.
• Wellness: Wellness companies hold a few patents on Ligands and Delivery, but also some on Processes.
• Technology: Technology companies hold patents on Ligands and Delivery.
• Tobacco: Tobacco companies hold patents onDelivery and Vaping. 
• Industrial: Industrial companies hold patents mostly on Cultivation but also a few on Ligands, Processing, and Detection
• Agriculture: Agriculture companies hold mostly patents on cannabis Cultivation.
• Government: Government holds most of its patents on Ligands. Note, of course, the irony that Government has held patents on cannabis therapeutics while refusing to remove cannabis from its Schedule I classification.

Figure 25

 

Figure 26

 

Concluding Thoughts

Categories

There is so much innovation in cannabis at stages all along the cannabis supply chain. Nevertheless, patents on therapeutics dominate the landscape. Perhaps patents on therapeutics play a larger role in the healthcare industry than patents on technology play in the cultivation, processing, supply, and use of cannabis? The industry is evolving quite rapidly, so maybe that plays a role? Regardless, there is so much phenomenal innovation happening. It will be interesting to see how many patents are litigated, and in those cases, how many patents hold up, that is, are found to be valid.

Assignee Countries

It was surprising to see how many countries hold US patents, though there are a relatively small number of countries that hold the vast majority of patents.

Assignee Industries

It was interesting, though not surprising, to see Cannabis Pharma emerge as a new industry. It was interesting, though not surprising, to see tobacco companies holding so many patents on vaping. 

At the same time, I was surprised not to see alcohol or beverages companies holding emulsion or beverages patents. On the other hand, Constellation owns a share of Canopy, and Canopy does hold patents. Likewise, Anheuser-Busch is partnering with Tilray, who owns patents. So it seems Big Beverages are simply indirect patent owners.

While assignees do hold patents in the Animals/Pets category, there aren’t as many patents as I thought there might be, given the large and growing amount of resources devoted to pets.

Natural vs. Synthetic Cannabinoids

Perhaps the most surprising finding was the fact that the number of patents on natural cannabinoids (Ligands and Delivery) significantly outweigh the number of patents on synthetics. Given the difficulty of getting FDA-approval on natural products, I was sure I would find the reverse. It will be interesting to see how naturally-derived compounds are developed and released into therapeutics.