DCT
2:25-cv-02112
Global IP Holdings v. GVB Biopharma
Key Events
Complaint
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: 2:25-cv-02112, D. Colo., 06/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the District of Colorado and having committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ethanol-based process for extracting cannabinoids from hemp infringes patents related to methods that use super-cooled solvents to reduce the co-extraction of undesirable compounds like chlorophyll.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses a key challenge in the cannabis and hemp industries: efficiently extracting desired compounds (like cannabinoids) while leaving behind unwanted plant matter (like lipids and chlorophyll) using a food-grade solvent.
- Key Procedural History: The '248 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '407 Patent. This relationship suggests the claims of the later patent may have been drafted to address developments or perceived limitations in the earlier patent's claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-14 | Earliest Priority Date for '407 and '248 Patents |
| 2019-12-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 Issues |
| 2020-10-27 | U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 Issues |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint Filed |
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 Dec. 17, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional methods for extracting cannabinoids from plants like hemp, such as using hydrocarbons or supercritical CO2, as suffering from drawbacks including the use of volatile or impure solvents, high costs, and the co-extraction of undesired plant lipids and chlorophyll, which requires difficult post-extraction purification steps (’407 Patent, col. 1:15-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a novel extraction process using a super-cooled ethanol solvent. By lowering the temperature of both the ethanol solvent and the plant substrate to a range of -30°C to -50°C, the process can selectively extract desired cannabinoids and terpenes while leaving the undesirable, less soluble chlorophyll and lipids behind in the plant material (’407 Patent, col. 1:58-62; col. 2:6-14). The process yields a "clean cannabinoid/terpene extract devoid of plant lipids and chlorophyll" (’407 Patent, col. 1:60-62).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a way to produce a cleaner botanical extract using a food-grade solvent (ethanol), potentially reducing the need for extensive post-processing while avoiding the safety hazards and capital costs associated with other common extraction techniques (’407 Patent, col. 1:58-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A pre-processing step of lowering a solvent's temperature to a range of -30°C to -50°C.
- A contacting step where the cooled solvent contacts plant substrate at that same temperature range to create an emulsion.
- An evaporation step using atmospheric evaporation to reduce the emulsion.
- A recovery step to recover the solvent from the emulsion.
- A purging step that results in an extract "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll."
U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 - "Methods to reduce chlorophyll co-extraction through extraction of select moieties essential oils and aromatic isolates" (issued Oct. 27, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part, the ’248 Patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent '407 Patent: the need for a safer, more reliable extraction process that avoids co-extracting plant lipids and chlorophyll along with desired cannabinoids (’248 Patent, col. 2:38-51).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is fundamentally the same super-cooled solvent extraction method. However, the claims and specification of the ’248 Patent introduce additional details, including an explicit exclusion of liquid carbon dioxide from the process and specific optional compositions for the solvent, such as a mixture of 95% ethanol and 5% of another non-ethanol solvent (’248 Patent, col. 2:49-55, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology's importance is identical to that of the '407 patent, with the patent itself appearing to provide more defined claim boundaries around solvent composition and excluded techniques.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A process that "excludes use of liquid carbon dioxide."
- A pre-processing step of lowering a solvent's temperature to a range of -30°C to -50°C.
- A contacting step at that temperature range between the solvent and a "cannabis plant substrate" to create an emulsion.
- An evaporation step using atmospheric evaporation.
- A recovery step for the solvent.
- A purging step "under vacuum" resulting in an extract "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll."
- An optional definition of the solvent as either "95% ethanol and 5% of a solvent that is another solvent that does not comprise ethanol" or another specified solvent-like material.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant GVB's "ethanol extraction method," referred to as the "Accused Method" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant employs an extraction process to obtain cannabinoids from hemp plant substrate (Compl. ¶20). This process allegedly uses "ultra-low temperature ethanol" chilled to a range between -30°C and -50°C (Compl. ¶24). The Accused Method is alleged to include steps for atmospheric evaporation, solvent recovery, and purging under vacuum with a rotary evaporator (Compl. ¶26-28). The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that the solvent used is a 95/5 ethanol-based mixture and that the process explicitly excludes the use of liquid carbon dioxide (Compl. ¶23, ¶29). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
'407 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| pre-processing comprising lowering the temperature of a solvent to a range of -30 degrees C. and -50 degrees C. | Defendant's process allegedly "lowers the temperature of the solvent to a range of between -30° C to -50°C." | ¶24 | col. 8:16-19 |
| contacting at -30 degrees C. and -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...at a temperature of between -30 degrees C to -50 degrees C." | ¶25 | col. 8:19-22 |
| evaporating for reduction of the emulsion by means of atmospheric evaporation of the solvent | The Accused Method allegedly "includes a step of atmospheric evaporation of the solvent for reduction of the emulsion." | ¶26 | col. 8:22-24 |
| recovering for recovery of the solvent from the emulsion | Defendant's process allegedly "includes recovering of solvent from the emulsion." | ¶27 | col. 8:24-25 |
| purging whereby a resultory extract is substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll | The Accused Method allegedly includes purging "whereby a resultory extract is substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." | ¶28 | col. 8:25-27 |
'248 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A safer and more reliable extraction process... wherein the process excludes use of liquid carbon dioxide | Defendant's process "excludes the use of liquid carbon dioxide." | ¶23 | col. 24:5-6 |
| pre-processing comprising lowering the temperature of a solvent to a range of -30 degrees C. to -50 degrees C. | Defendant's process allegedly "lowers the temperature of the solvent to a range of between -30° C to -50°C." | ¶24 | col. 24:8-11 |
| contacting at -30 degrees C. to -50 degrees C., wherein there is a contacting time between the cannabis plant substrate and the solvent to create an emulsion | Defendant allegedly "brings the cooled solvent into contact with the plant substrate to create an emulsion." | ¶25 | col. 24:11-14 |
| purging under vacuum to remove remaining solvent... whereby a resultory extract is substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll | The Accused Method allegedly "includes a step of purging under vacuum to remove remaining solvent from the extract whereby a resultory extract is substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." | ¶28 | col. 24:17-20 |
| wherein optionally, (a) the solvent is 95% ethanol and 5% of a solvent that is another solvent that does not comprise ethanol | On information and belief, the Accused Method allegedly "utilizes an ethanol solvent that is comprised of 95% ethanol and 5% of a solvent that does not comprise ethanol." | ¶29 | col. 24:22-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary point of contention for the ’407 Patent may arise from the definition of "solvent." The complaint alleges use of a 95/5 ethanol blend (Compl. ¶29), but the ’407 Patent specification states, "The term solvent as used herein should be understood to describe 100% grain ethanol" (’407 Patent, col. 2:4-5). This raises the question of whether an accused process using a 95% ethanol mixture can literally infringe a claim to a "solvent" that has been explicitly defined as 100% ethanol.
- Technical Questions: For both patents, a key factual dispute may center on the limitation "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." The infringement allegation rests on a conclusory statement that the accused process achieves this result (Compl. ¶28). The case may require technical evidence to determine the actual composition of the defendant's final extract and whether it meets the quantitative threshold (e.g., below 1% chlorophyll) suggested by the patents' specifications (’407 Patent, Abstract).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "solvent" (as used in Claim 1 of the '407 Patent)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation against the ’407 Patent may depend entirely on the construction of this term. Defendant will likely argue that its alleged use of a 95/5 ethanol blend (Compl. ¶29) falls outside the literal scope of a term the patent explicitly defines as "100% grain ethanol" (’407 Patent, col. 2:4-5).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the art and that the specification's statement was merely descriptive of a preferred embodiment, not a binding definition for all claims.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contains what appears to be an explicit definitional statement: "The term solvent as used herein should be understood to describe 100% grain ethanol" (’407 Patent, col. 2:4-5). This language provides strong support for a narrow construction limited to pure ethanol.
The Term: "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll" (as used in Claim 1 of both patents)
- Context and Importance: This term of degree is central to the claimed invention's purpose. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely turn on the factual question of how "free" is "substantially free."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties could argue that "substantially free" is a qualitative measure, meaning an amount low enough not to require significant further processing, without being tied to a specific number.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstracts of both patents provide a potential quantitative benchmark, describing the invention as providing an "extract with a concentration of chlorophyll that is below 1%" (’407 Patent, Abstract; ’248 Patent, Abstract). This provides a potential numeric ceiling that could be used to define the scope of "substantially free."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege induced or contributory infringement. It asserts only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶32, ¶38).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful "since at least the date of the filing of this complaint" (Compl. ¶35, ¶39). This allegation is based on post-suit knowledge and serves to put Defendant on notice for potential enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "solvent" in the ’407 Patent, which the specification states "should be understood to describe 100% grain ethanol," be construed to cover the 95/5 ethanol blend allegedly used by the Defendant? The stark contrast between this definition and the explicit inclusion of a 95/5 blend in the later ’248 Patent claim will be a central focus of claim construction.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of quantitative proof: what factual evidence will be required to prove that the accused process yields an extract that is "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll"? The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts the "below 1%" chlorophyll concentration mentioned in the patents' abstracts as the operative technical standard for infringement.