Categories
Psychedelic Patents

Graham Pechenik and Noah Potter Discuss Psychedelic Patents

The New Amsterdam Psychedelic Law blog recently published a video discussion between  Graham Pechenik and Noah Potter about “Who owns psychedelics: patents and state therapeutic access laws.”

The blog is run by Noah Potter is a commercial litigator but not a patent attorney.  He interviews Graham Pechenik who is an expert in psychedelic patent law.

In the interview, they discuss the following points:

  • General requirements for patentability and how psychedelic patents fit into that picture
  • Compass Pathways (very narrow) patent to very specific, particular forms of psilocybin.  Mr. Pechenik believes that Compass’s IP will not be relevant to the Oregon psilocybin service centers contemplated by Oregon Measure 109 because those service centers are unlikely to use Compass’s particular crystalline form of psilocybin.
  • Paul Stamets‘s attempts to patent combinations (e.g., the Stamets “stack”) of natural ingredients.
  • How patent law would (and would not) affect the future of the psychedelic landscape.  Mr. Pechenik believes that patents will benefit the industry — in different ways for different businesses. A rising tide lifts all boats.
  • Mr. Pechenik notes that patents don’t necessarily need to be used solely to maximize profits.  He notes that patents could be used to serve the public good.  This could be accomplished by licensing agreements that prioritize the public good.