Pure Hemp Prevails, but Unexceptional Case Dooms Pure Hemp’s Attorneys’ Fee Request

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, because the claims were dismissed with prejudice, United Cannabis cannot assert the same patents against the same Pure Hemp products again. However, the Federal Circuit explained that this error was harmless. Specifically, the Court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pure Hemp’s motion because Pure Hemp failed to establish that the case was exceptional.