DCT
1:25-cv-01996
Global IP Holdings v. GVB Biopharma
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Global IP Holdings, LLC (California)
- Defendant: GVB Biopharma (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01996, D. Colo., 06/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant GVB Biopharma maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ethanol-based cannabinoid extraction process infringes patents related to methods for reducing the co-extraction of undesirable compounds like chlorophyll and lipids.
- Technical Context: The technology lies in the field of botanical chemical extraction, a process central to the growing legal cannabis and hemp-derived product industries for producing purified cannabinoid isolates.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation or licensing. U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 is a divisional of an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,035,081. U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to the '407 patent. A Certificate of Correction was issued for the '407 patent on March 28, 2023, correcting a typographical error in the language of claim 1.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-14 | Earliest Priority Date for '407 and '248 Patents |
| 2019-12-17 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 |
| 2020-10-27 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 |
| 2023-03-28 | Certificate of Correction Issued for U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 - "Methods to reduce chlorophyll co-extraction through extraction of select moieties essential oils and aromatic isolates," issued December 17, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes drawbacks of conventional cannabis and hemp extraction methods, including the high cost and complexity of supercritical CO2 extraction and the impurity of extracts from hydrocarbon solvents, which often co-extract undesirable plant lipids and chlorophyll ('407 Patent, col. 1:27-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a super-cooled solvent, preferably grain ethanol, to selectively extract cannabinoids while leaving undesired constituents behind. The core of the process involves chilling both the solvent and the plant substrate to a low temperature range (e.g., -30°C to -50°C) prior to and during the extraction contact, which prevents lipids and chlorophyll from dissolving into the solvent ('407 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-12). The system depicted in Figure 1 shows the extraction vessel (1.H) enclosed within an "ultra-low freezer compartment" (1.L), illustrating the centrality of the low-temperature environment ('407 Patent, col. 2:57-62).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide a safer, more efficient, and cost-effective method for producing a "clean cannabinoid/terpene extract devoid of plant lipids and chlorophyll," suitable for food-grade manufacturing environments ('407 Patent, col. 1:60-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include: (i) pre-processing by lowering a solvent's temperature to a range of -30°C to -50°C; (ii) contacting the solvent and plant substrate at that temperature range to create an emulsion; (iii) reducing the emulsion via atmospheric evaporation; (iv) recovering the solvent from the emulsion; and (v) purging the extract so it is substantially free of lipids and chlorophyll ('407 Patent, col. 8:13-31).
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶32).
U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 - "Methods to reduce chlorophyll co-extraction through extraction of select moieties essential oils and aromatic isolates," issued October 27, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the '248 Patent addresses the problem of co-extracting undesirable plant lipids and chlorophyll when producing cannabinoid extracts from plant material ('248 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
- The Patented Solution: The '248 patent claims a similar low-temperature extraction process but expands the definition of the solvent used. While still centered on the principle of using a temperature range of -30°C to -50°C to ensure purity, the claims explicitly cover solvent compositions other than 100% ethanol ('248 Patent, col. 2:8-12). Claim 1, for example, includes optional clauses for solvents that are a 95% ethanol/5% non-ethanol blend or other specific solvents like heptane or hexane, while excluding the use of liquid carbon dioxide ('248 Patent, col. 24:5-32).
- Technical Importance: The invention broadens the proprietary protection for the low-temperature extraction technique by explicitly claiming various solvent formulations beyond pure grain ethanol.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of claim 1 largely mirror those of the '407 patent's claim 1 but add the negative limitation that the process "excludes use of liquid carbon dioxide" and includes optional definitions for the solvent composition, such as a 95%/5% ethanol blend or a solvent selected from a group including heptane and hexane ('248 Patent, col. 24:3-32).
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the ethanol-based extraction method ("Accused Method") used by Defendant GVB Biopharma to produce cannabinoid compounds from hemp plant substrate (Compl. ¶20-21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Method is an ethanol extraction process that specifically "excludes the use of liquid carbon dioxide" (Compl. ¶23).
- The process allegedly involves using "cold ethanol" or "ultra-low temperature ethanol" that is cooled to a range between -30°C and -50°C (Compl. ¶24). This cooled solvent is then contacted with the plant substrate (Compl. ¶25).
- Subsequent alleged steps include atmospheric evaporation to reduce the resulting emulsion (Compl. ¶26), recovery of the evaporated ethanol solvent (Compl. ¶27), and a final purging step under vacuum with a rotary evaporator to yield an extract "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll" (Compl. ¶28).
- Plaintiff alleges, "on information and belief," that the solvent used is a blend of 95% ethanol and 5% of a non-ethanol solvent (Compl. ¶29). The complaint references GVB's marketing of products such as "CBD Isolate" made via this process (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not attached to the publicly filed document. The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint body. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) pre-processing comprising lowering the temperature of a solvent to a range of -30 degrees C. and -50 degrees C., | Defendant allegedly uses "cold ethanol" and an "ultralow-temperature process" to lower the solvent temperature to between -30°C and -50°C. | ¶24 | col. 8:17-19 |
| (ii) contacting at -30 degrees C. to -50 degrees C. wherein there is a contacting time between the plant substrate and the solvent to create an emulsion, | Defendant allegedly brings the cooled solvent into contact with the plant substrate with the solvent at a temperature between -30°C and -50°C. | ¶25 | col. 8:20-23 |
| (iii) evaporating for reduction of the emulsion by means of atmospheric evaporation of the solvent, | Defendant's process allegedly includes a step of "atmospheric evaporation of the solvent." | ¶26 | col. 8:24-26 |
| (iv) recovering for recovery of the solvent from the emulsion, | Defendant allegedly "recovers the evaporated alcohol (ethanol solvent)." | ¶27 | col. 8:27-28 |
| (v) purging whereby a resultory extract is substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll. | Defendant allegedly purges under vacuum, resulting in an extract that is "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." | ¶28 | col. 8:29-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Question: The allegations concerning the specific operating temperature range (-30°C to -50°C) are made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶24). The actual temperatures of Defendant's process will be a central factual issue for discovery.
- Scope Question: The claim requires the resulting extract to be "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." The level of purity in Defendant's final product and the evidentiary proof required to meet this "substantially free" standard will likely be a key point of contention.
U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A... process for extracting cannabinoids... wherein the process excludes use of liquid carbon dioxide, | Defendant allegedly "performs ethanol extraction... via a process that excludes the use of liquid carbon dioxide." | ¶23 | col. 24:5-6 |
| (i) pre-processing comprising lowering the temperature of a solvent to a range of -30 degrees C. to -50 degrees C., | Defendant allegedly cools its ethanol solvent to a temperature range between -30°C and -50°C. | ¶24 | col. 24:8-11 |
| (ii) contacting at -30 degrees C. to -50 degrees C.... to create an emulsion, | Defendant allegedly contacts the cooled solvent with plant substrate within the claimed temperature range. | ¶25 | col. 24:12-15 |
| (iii) evaporating for reduction of the emulsion by means of atmospheric evaporation of the solvent, | Defendant's process allegedly includes "atmospheric evaporation of the solvent." | ¶26 | col. 24:16-18 |
| (iv) recovering for recovery of the solvent from the emulsion, | Defendant allegedly "recovers the evaporated alcohol." | ¶27 | col. 24:19-21 |
| (v) purging under vacuum... whereby a resultory extract is substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll, | Defendant allegedly purges under vacuum to create an extract that is "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." | ¶28 | col. 24:22-25 |
| wherein optionally, (a) the solvent is 95% ethanol and 5% of a solvent that is another solvent that does not comprise ethanol... | Plaintiff alleges on "information and belief" that the Defendant's method "utilizes an ethanol solvent that is comprised of 95% ethanol and 5% of a solvent." | ¶29 | col. 24:27-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Question: The infringement allegation for the '248 Patent appears to rely heavily on the "information and belief" assertion that Defendant uses a 95/5 ethanol-blend solvent (Compl. ¶29). Verifying the precise composition of Defendant's solvent will be critical to this infringement theory.
- Technical Question: As with the ’407 Patent, the actual operating temperatures and the final purity of the extract will be key technical questions for the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll"
(asserted in claims of both the '407 and '248 patents)
- Context and Importance: This is a term of degree that is central to the invention's purpose. The construction of this term will define the required level of purity for an extracted product to be infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity presents a clear avenue for a non-infringement or indefiniteness defense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue the term should be understood from the perspective of one skilled in the art to mean clean enough to avoid subsequent, dedicated purification steps for these specific compounds. The abstract of the '407 patent provides context, stating the method yields an extract "with a concentration of chlorophyll that is below 1%," which may be argued as an exemplary, non-limiting benchmark ('407 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "substantially free" combined with "any" requires a near-total absence of the specified compounds. They might also argue that the "below 1%" language in the abstract sets a hard ceiling that their product does not meet, or that the patent fails to provide an objective standard, rendering the term indefinite.
The Term: "a solvent"
('407 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term in the earlier '407 patent is critical, particularly when read in light of the later '248 patent, which explicitly claims solvent blends. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue that the '407 patent is limited to a specific solvent, creating a path to non-infringement if the accused process uses a blend.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plaintiff will likely argue that "a solvent" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing any solvent suitable for the claimed process, as the claim language itself is not explicitly limiting.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the specification of the '407 patent acts as a lexicon by stating, "The term solvent as used herein should be understood to describe 100% grain ethanol" ('407 Patent, col. 2:4-5). This could support an argument that the patentee disclaimed any scope beyond 100% ethanol, an interpretation potentially reinforced by the filing of the '248 patent to explicitly cover other formulations.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continuation of infringing activities after the lawsuit was filed. It states, "Defendant's infringement has been willful since at least the date of the filing of this complaint" (Compl. ¶35, ¶39). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof for factual allegations: Can the plaintiff, through discovery, substantiate its "information and belief" allegations regarding the defendant's specific operating temperatures and, most critically for the '248 patent, its use of a 95/5 ethanol-blend solvent? The case's viability may depend on the answers.
- A central question of claim construction will be the scope of purity: How will the court define the term of degree "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll"? The outcome of this construction will set the factual bar that the plaintiff's evidence must clear to prove infringement.
- A key legal question will concern potential prosecution history disclaimer: Did the patentee, by defining "a solvent" as "100% grain ethanol" in the '407 patent's specification and later filing the '248 patent with claims to blends, effectively limit the scope of the '407 patent to exclude the very solvent blends now accused of infringement?