8:26-cv-00059
CCT Sciences LLC v. Vertosa Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CCT Sciences, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Vertosa, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A.
- Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00059, M.D. Fla., 01/09/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant conducts business in the district, a substantial part of the alleged deceptive conduct occurred in the district, and Plaintiff suffered injury in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is engaged in a false advertising campaign in violation of the Lanham Act, claiming its Delta 9-THC products are "natural" and "hemp-derived" when they are allegedly sourced from or adulterated with federally regulated, marijuana-derived THC.
- Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the U.S. cannabinoid market, where the legal distinction between hemp (containing ≤0.3% Delta-9 THC) and marijuana under the 2018 Farm Bill is a critical commercial and regulatory issue.
- Key Procedural History: To establish its position as a legitimate competitor in the market, the complaint notes that Plaintiff is the inventor and owner of four U.S. patents related to processes for producing compliant Delta 8-THC and Delta 9-THC from hemp. No other procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-03-26 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,292,779 and 11,753,390 |
| 2021-11-09 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,029,718 and 12,458,620 |
| 2022-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 11,292,779 Issues |
| 2023-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,753,390 Issues |
| 2024-01-01 | Alleged timeframe of Defendant purchasing "natural hemp-derived Delta 9" |
| 2024-07-09 | U.S. Patent No. 12,029,718 Issues |
| 2025-01-01 | Alleged market price timeframe for "natural hemp-derived Delta 9" |
| 2025-11-04 | U.S. Patent No. 12,458,620 Issues |
| 2026-01-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The products at issue are Defendant Vertosa’s Delta 9-THC emulsions and other cannabinoid products intended for use in beverages and edibles (Compl. ¶3, 23).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products are commercially advertised as being "natural," "hemp-derived," and produced from "hemp-based CBD mother liquor" or "CBD distillate" through a process that "avoids the risks associated with conversion materials" (Compl. ¶2, 25, 27). The central allegation is that this marketing is false (Compl. ¶45). The complaint asserts that analytical evidence contradicts these claims, pointing to a Certificate of Analysis (COA) for Vertosa's supplied distillate that allegedly shows the presence of Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCv) and the absence of Cannabidivarin (CBDv) (Compl. ¶29-30). This specific cannabinoid profile is alleged to be "entirely consistent with cannabis-derived THC distillate" and inconsistent with a hemp-derived CBD starting material (Compl. ¶31, 50-51). The complaint further alleges that the economics of Vertosa's pricing are "impossible" if the product were truly derived from hemp-based CBD distillate via chromatography, but "perfectly match the market price for cannabis-derived distillate" (Compl. ¶35-39). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
III. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
As this is a false advertising and unfair competition action, not a patent infringement case, the central issues do not involve claim construction or infringement. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A central scientific and evidentiary question will be one of chemical provenance: Can Plaintiff prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cannabinoid profiles of Defendant’s products (e.g., the alleged presence of THCv and absence of CBDv) definitively establish their origin as marijuana-derived, rather than hemp-derived, as advertised?
- A key question of commercial injury will be one of materiality and causation: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's alleged misrepresentations about the "natural" and "hemp-derived" source of its THC were a material factor in consumers' purchasing decisions and that these misrepresentations directly caused Plaintiff competitive injury, such as lost sales or damage to its reputation and patented technology?
- An ancillary question will be one of economic feasibility: Will the court find the complaint's economic analysis—alleging that Defendant's product pricing is commercially unviable for a legitimate hemp-derived product but aligns with the market for marijuana-derived products—to be persuasive circumstantial evidence of deceptive sourcing?