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., 03/24/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the Middle District of Florida, a substantial part of the alleged deceptive conduct occurred in the district, and Plaintiff, a Florida company, suffered injury in the district.
• Core Dispute: The complaint's primary counts are for false advertising and unfair competition, alleging that Defendant misrepresents its Delta-9 THC products as being derived from federally legal hemp when they are actually sourced from or adulterated with cannabis (marijuana). Plaintiff's patents, which relate to processes for producing cannabinoids from hemp, are presented to establish its market position and the harm caused by Defendant's alleged misrepresentations.
• Technical Context: This dispute centers on the chemical processes for producing specific cannabinoids from either hemp or marijuana, a distinction with significant legal and commercial implications in the cannabis-derived products industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or other significant procedural events related to the patents identified.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

Although the complaint does not formally assert patent infringement, it identifies four patents owned by Plaintiff CCT Sciences, LLC, to establish its role in the market and the basis for alleged competitive harm Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶24 The following analysis proceeds on the basis of these identified patents.

U.S. Patent No. 11,292,779 - "Process for Production of Essentially Pure A8-Tetrahydrocannabinol from Cannabidiol Extracted from Hemp"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,292,779 B1, "Process for Production of Essentially Pure A8-Tetrahydrocannabinol from Cannabidiol Extracted from Hemp," issued April 5, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes a need to produce medicinally beneficial cannabinoids from the large U.S. supply of industrial hemp, which is legally defined by having a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) concentration of not more than 0.3% '779 Patent, col. 2:8-24 Prior methods for converting cannabidiol (CBD) into delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC) could also produce small amounts of Δ9-THC, creating a risk of non-compliance with federal law '779 Patent, col. 1:52-60
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a process to isomerize CBD from industrial hemp into a highly pure Δ8-THC extract that is "essentially free from any detectable levels" of Δ9-THC '779 Patent, abstract The core process involves "refluxing" a CBD extract with an organic acid catalyst (e.g., p-toluenesulfonic acid) in a solvent (e.g., toluene), followed by neutralization and evaporation to obtain a crude Δ8-THC oil that remains compliant with federal Δ9-THC limits '779 Patent, col. 4:45-54 '779 Patent, FIG. 2 Subsequent purification steps are also described to achieve higher purity '779 Patent, col. 4:61-col. 5:5
• Technical Importance: The described process was designed to enable large-scale, federally compliant production of Δ8-THC by avoiding the creation of illegal concentrations of Δ9-THC at any stage of manufacturing '779 Patent, col. 4:5-11

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is the patent's broadest independent process claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • (i) Refluxing a cannabidiol extract (from industrial hemp with <0.3% Δ9-THC) in a mixture of toluene and p-toluenesulfonic acid monohydrate at 70°C-100°C for 120-1440 minutes, resulting in a reaction mixture with less than 0.3% Δ9-THC.
  • (ii) Adding aqueous sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the reaction mixture, adding water, and evaporating to obtain a crude Δ8-THC oil with a specified purity and a Δ9-THC level below 0.3%.
• The right to assert dependent claims would typically be reserved in a patent infringement complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 11,753,390 - "Δ-8-TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL FROM CANNABIDIOL EXTRACTED FROM HEMP"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,753,390 B2, "Δ-8-TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL FROM CANNABIDIOL EXTRACTED FROM HEMP," issued September 12, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the '779 Patent, addresses the same technical challenge: creating a federally compliant process to produce pure Δ8-THC from hemp-derived CBD '390 Patent, col. 2:15-20
• The Patented Solution: The '390 Patent claims not only the process but also the resulting composition. The invention is a highly pure (>99%) Δ8-THC oil that is defined by the process used to create it. This process involves the acid-catalyzed reaction of CBD followed by a multi-step purification sequence, including vacuum distillation to remove volatile impurities and wiped film distillation to remove high-boiling-point impurities, thereby ensuring the final product's purity and legal compliance '390 Patent, abstract '390 Patent, col. 3:57-col. 4:4
• Technical Importance: The patent protects a specific, highly pure Δ8-THC composition defined by a product-by-process method, providing a potential route to a commercially valuable and legally compliant cannabinoid product '390 Patent, col. 2:35-46

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is a composition claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A composition comprising a >99% pure Δ8-THC oil with less than 0.3% Δ9-THC.
  • Wherein the oil is a distillate having had specific impurities removed via vacuum distillation (residual solvent and volatile cannabidiol impurities) and wiped film distillation (high temperature cannabinoid impurities).
  • Wherein the distillate is a reaction product of a cannabidiol extract from industrial hemp.
• The right to assert dependent claims would typically be reserved.

U.S. Patent No. 12,029,718 - "Process for Production of Essentially Pure Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,029,718 B2, "Process for Production of Essentially Pure Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol," issued July 9, 2024.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of producing high-purity Δ9-THC from CBD without forming other isomers like Δ8-THC, which is the more thermodynamically stable product '718 Patent, col. 1:40-45 The invention discloses a process using an organoaluminum-based Lewis acid catalyst to convert CBD from industrial hemp into Δ9-THC with high selectivity (>90-99%), followed by purification steps like split path distillation '718 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: No claims are explicitly asserted. Independent claim 1 is a key process claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges Defendant Vertosa falsely claims its Delta-9 THC products are derived from hemp-based CBD through a "natural process" involving chromatography Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶39

U.S. Patent No. 12,458,620 - "Process for Production of Essentially Pure A-Tetrahydrocannabinol"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,458,620 B2, "Process for Production of Essentially Pure A-Tetrahydrocannabinol," issued November 4, 2025.
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application leading to the '718 patent, this patent covers the same core technology: a process for converting CBD to high-purity Δ9-THC using an organoaluminum catalyst. It emphasizes a scalable process that produces a product "essentially free" of other cannabinoids besides trace amounts of the starting CBD material and includes methods for adding a molecular marker to authenticate the product '620 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: No claims are explicitly asserted. Independent claim 1 is a key process claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges Defendant Vertosa markets and sells Delta-9 THC products that it falsely represents as being produced from hemp-derived CBD Compl. ¶¶36-39

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant Vertosa's "Delta 9-THC emulsions and other cannabinoid products" Compl. ¶3

Functionality and Market Context

• Vertosa allegedly markets its products as "natural hemp-derived Delta 9-THC" created through a "natural process" that uses "hemp-based CBD distillate" as a starting material Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶36 Vertosa's representations suggest a process that involves "column chromatography" and creates "safe THC emulsions" Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶36 The complaint alleges these representations are false Compl. ¶4 Based on analytical evidence, the complaint alleges Vertosa's product is not derived from hemp but is instead "sourced from or adulterated with cannabis-derived Delta 9-THC," a materially different and federally regulated substance Compl. ¶4 This allegation is supported by claims that Vertosa's product contains the cannabinoid THCv without CBDv, a profile the complaint asserts is consistent with a marijuana origin, not a hemp-CBD origin Compl. ¶¶46-48 Compl. ¶69

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for false advertising and does not contain formal patent infringement allegations or a claim chart. The following analysis is based on a hypothetical infringement theory where Plaintiff CCT might allege that Defendant Vertosa's advertised process-not its alleged actual sourcing-infringes the patents-in-suit. The information available in the complaint regarding this advertised process is limited.

'779 Patent Infringement Allegations

'390 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement of the '390 Patent's product-by-process claims. To assess infringement, one would need to determine if Vertosa's accused Δ9-THC product meets the purity and impurity profile limitations of claim 1 of the '390 Patent and is made by the claimed process. The complaint alleges the accused product is Δ9-THC, whereas the '390 Patent claims a Δ8-THC composition, suggesting a fundamental mismatch.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Threshold Factual Dispute: The central issue raised in the complaint is one of false advertising, not patent infringement. A court would first need to resolve the foundational factual question of whether Vertosa's product is derived from hemp via a manufacturing process or is sourced directly from marijuana. The outcome of this question would determine whether a patent infringement analysis is relevant.
  • Process Mismatch: Should an infringement analysis proceed based on Vertosa's advertised process, a key point of contention would be whether the advertised "natural process" using "column chromatography" Compl. ¶36 falls within the scope of the claims, which require specific chemical steps like "refluxing" with an acid catalyst '779 Patent, claim 1
  • Product Identity Mismatch: The '779 and '390 patents claim processes for making, and compositions of, Δ8-THC. The accused instrumentality is a Δ9-THC product Compl. ¶3 This difference in the final chemical product suggests a direct defense of non-infringement against these two patents, though CCT's other identified patents ('718 and '620) are directed to Δ9-THC.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Given the hypothetical nature of the infringement analysis, the construction of the following term from the '779 Patent would be critical.

• The Term: "refluxing" (from claim 1 of the '779 Patent)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core chemical conversion step of the patented process. In a hypothetical infringement action, a central question would be whether Vertosa's advertised "natural process" Compl. ¶36 constitutes "refluxing" as understood in the patent. The definition of this term could determine whether the advertised process meets this key limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement might point to the specification's description of refluxing occurring across a wide range of temperatures (70°C-100°C) and durations (120-1440 minutes) '779 Patent, claim 1, suggesting the term covers a variety of heating processes designed to facilitate a chemical reaction in a solvent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing against infringement could contend that "refluxing" is a term of art requiring a specific apparatus where a liquid is heated to its boiling point and the resulting vapor is condensed and returned to the reaction vessel. The patent's detailed examples, which specify precise temperatures and times for the reflux step (e.g.,'779 Patent, col. 16:59-61), could be used to argue that the term should be construed narrowly and tied to these specific disclosed conditions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect patent infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Vertosa's actions constituting false advertising and unfair competition were "willful, and intentional" Compl. ¶91 However, it does not contain allegations of willful patent infringement.

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

While the filed action is for false advertising, if a patent dispute were to arise from the facts alleged in the complaint, it would likely center on the following questions:

1. A core issue would be one of product origin: is the accused Delta-9 THC product manufactured via a chemical process from hemp-derived CBD, as Vertosa advertises, or is it sourced from marijuana, as the complaint alleges? This threshold factual determination would dictate whether any analysis of process patent infringement is applicable.
2. A second key question would be one of process scope: assuming the advertised process is considered, can the specific, chemically-defined steps of the asserted patents (e.g., "refluxing" with an acid catalyst or reacting with an "organoaluminum catalyst") be construed to cover the defendant's vaguely advertised "natural process" using "column chromatography"?
3. Finally, a dispositive question for the lead patents discussed would be one of chemical identity: can patents claiming a process for making, and compositions of, Δ8-THC ('779 and '390 patents) be infringed by the marketing and sale of a product that is undisputedly Δ9-THC?