Saturday, April 11, 2015


Defendants ask for Clarification 1455
See Here


Wednesday, April 8, 2015


As of April 7, 2015, there were 1,874,638,210­­­­­­­ shares of common stock outstanding.

In October 2014, the District Court in Indiana ruled in favor of the defendants in our pending patent infringement matter on their motions for summary judgment alleging that our corn oil extraction patents were invalid, including US Pat. Nos. 7,601,858 and 8,168,037. In December 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed three new corn oil extraction patent applications (U.S. Patent Application Nos.: 11/908,891, 13/185,841 and 13/450,997). Each application was examined and considered patentable by a different patent examiner, after each had considered the summary judgment decision. We cannot speak to the significance of the conflicting determinations.


GreenShift Corporation currently has 10 full-time employees. In addition to its executive officers, GreenShift employs sales personnel, staff engineers, process managers, maintenance managers, administrative personnel and general facility technicians. There is no union representation for any of our employees.

See Here



1454 Trial Dates




Friday, April 3, 2015

10-K Notice

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K could not be filed within the required time because there was a delay in completing the procedures necessary to close the books for the year.

See Here


Sunday, March 29, 2015


Court hereby GRANTS Partial Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants ICM, Inc., David Vander Griend, and Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc.,

 Court hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE ICM, Inc.’s, claim under the Lanham Act, Count I of the Fifth Amended Complaint. This Order does not waive Plaintiff GS CleanTech’s right to appeal either Order.

See Here 1448
1451+1452 sealed


Friday, March 20, 2015


This is not Greenshift - but an old one with some familiar names. Looks like a final settlement in about a month. . .

See Here


Friday, March 13, 2015


Between December 22, 2014 and March 9, 2015 GreenShift Corporation has issued 596,357,050 shares of common stock upon the conversion of debt.  There are now 1,733,158,210 shares of common stock outstanding.  The new shares were issued in separate transactions with investors,  each of which exercised its right to convert  derivative  securities  issued by the Company in prior periods.  The issuances were exempt from registration under Section 5 of the Securities Act by reason of Section 4(2) of said Act, as the investors were sophisticated, were given access to information about the Company, and had taken the securities for investment. There were no underwriters.

See Here


Friday, February 27, 2015


Filing Here

You do not have access to this transcript.

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 2-17-15 before Judge Larry J. McKinney. (35 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jean Knepley (Telephone: (317) 686-0197). Please review Local Rule 80-2 for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 3/19/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/27/2015. (Knepley, Jean)


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

A Detailed GERS Reply

As shown above, from the time the letter was first addressed, and before Cantrell’s deposition, it was CleanTech’s position that the July 31 letter was related to experimental use of the test module identified in the letter and that the invention was not reduced to practice in 2003. (Ex. 18, DX 617, Ex. 19, DX 618, Ex. 20, DX 619, Ex. 21, DX 622 and Ex. 22, DX 624) At their depositions, Cantrell and Winsness testified that reduction to practice took place in 2004 as a result of the full scale Agri Energy test. (See, e.g., Ex. 47, Winsness Dep. 1108:16-1109:10; (Ex. 23, Cantrell Dep. at 274:6-17 (stating in 2003 he was only “hopefully optimistic” about their process), 1068:23-1069:6 (stating Mesrss. Winsness and Barlage told him the large scale test would not work)) They also consistently testified that the July 31, 2003 letter was an attempt to set up a full scale test at Agri Energy.

The GERS Argument Here 

The Exhibits in Support


Status Conference now Feb 17th

A Medical Allowed Under Seal?


Wednesday, January 21, 2015

GreenShift Receives Notices of Allowance on Three New Corn Oil Extraction Patents

 — GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB:GERS) announced today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently issued Notice of Allowances for the following U.S. Pat. Application Nos.:
  • 13/450,997 titled “Methods of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the “’997 Patent Application”) on December 19, 2014;
  • 13/185,841 titled “Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery from Ethanol Production Byproducts” (the “’841 Patent Application”) on December 24, 2014; and,
  • 11/908,891 titled “Methods and Systems for Washing Ethanol Production Byproducts to Improve Oil Recovery” (the “’891 Patent Application”) on December 26, 2014.
The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.
The Summary Judgment issued on October 23, 2014 by the District Court in Indiana and ruled in favor of defendants on their motions for summary judgment alleging that the corn oil extraction patents issued to GS CleanTech were invalid, including US Pat. Nos. 7,601,858 and 8,168,037. As previously announced GreenShift intends to appeal the Summary Judgment decision. Under applicable standards, a patent is not invalid until and unless a final judgment of invalidity is rendered after all available appeals have been exhausted.
“We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”

Coverage of Allowed Claims
The allowed ‘997 Patent Application is a continuation application of US Pat. No. 7,601,858, and involves the concentration and mechanical processing of thin stillage to recovery at least a portion of the oil from the concentrate. The ‘891 Patent Application and the ‘841 Patent Application are continuation applications of US Pat. No 8,168,037. The allowed claims in the ‘841 Patent Application cover processes directed to evaporating thin stillage to reduce water content, recovering oil with a horizontal centrifugal three phase decanter, evaporating the concentrate to further reduce its moisture content, and mixing the evaporated concentrate with distillers wet grains. The allowed claims in the ‘891 Patent Application include processes directed to washing whole stillage with thin stillage to increase the oil content of the thin stillage, followed by concentration and recovery of oil.

ad more here:

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Free Blog CounterTamron