Saturday, February 27, 2010

Confirmation

One of the key GreenShift arguments from the patent litigation filings was that Dave Winsness provided the COES technology to ICM in the form of two COES. ICM then used that technology to develop their own COES, rather than pay the royalties due a patented pending (now patented) Corn Oil Extraction System (COES). Another key argument was that not only was the Clean Tech Inventors the first and only to patent, but they were the first with the technology. A devestating argument was that the CleanTech Inventors first provided the technology to ICM - who then started selling their own version of a COES.

The SkunK found a 2005 article that seems to back up and provide irrefutable confirmation of the GreenShift position on each and every front. For the conspiracy types - this is not information provided by Greenshift to Ethanol Producer Magazine. This is an article where both ICM and Westfalia provided information directly to a reporter who then quoted their Company Officers! Thanks to the Internet we can go back and see what people were saying BEFORE this litigation began . . .

From the June 2005 Issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine:*************
"ICM Inc. is installing centrifuge technology provided by Vortex Dehydration Systems LLC in two of ICM's 40-mmgy plants, according to ICM Director of Plant Services Cheri Loest. She said the skid-unit technology intercepts the thin stillage stream before it enters the evaporator and removes corn oil. General Manager Dave Kramer told EPM he intends to implement the Vortex centrifuge in Sterling Ethanol, a 40-mmgy Colorado ethanol plant that recently broke ground."
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=221

************
AH-ha you say! ICM got the technology from Vortex Dehydration Systems LLC - not GreenShift!! This is where the history of this company is important. All you have to do is go to the Greenshift web site and read Dave Winsness bio to see this:
"Prior to joining GreenShift, Mr. Winsness served as chief technology officer and eventually chief executive officer of Vortex Dehydration Technology. . . "http://www.greenshift.com/whoweare.php?mode=4

Dave Winsness was one of the chief inventors. The inventors brought the COES patents to GS Clean Tech. You can look at the patents on the US Patent Office site and see that GS Clean Tech has been assigned the patent. GS Clean Tech is wholly owned by GreenShift Corp. The chain of patent ownership is clear and seems not to be an issue.************
OK Skunk, so it seems pretty obvious that ICM got the original technology from the GreenShift patented COES. But what about Westfalia??




"Westfalia Separator Inc. is now offering a de-oiling technology for condensed distillers grains. Keith Funsch, market manager for Westfalia, said the company is developing a centrifuge technology that would remove free corn oil from the syrup coming out of the evaporators. "

So this article shows that in 2005, the year after the 2004 Clean Tech provisional patent was applied for, Westfalia was still "developing" a corn oil extraction system . . . with NO COMMERCIAL COES.
To the SkunK, the information above seems to be very relevant to the final outcome. It appears to increase the chances of a settlement benefiting GERS. When and how much? We could have a settlement announced today - or this thing could drag on for years. The strength of the GreenShift case abbreviated below would seems to push this ahead:
1. Holding the patents
2. Providing the prior art arguments to the Patent official prior to the patent issue.
3. Providing the COES to ICM before they developed their version.
4. The first development timing showed above.
The upsetting of the business and future contracts for ICM and Westfalia while this litigation continues should motivate them towards self-interest and the negotiating table. Who would write a contract with either for a COES if it may cause a 60% liability for their Ethanol Plant in the future? So the two things: The strength of the GreenShift position and the self-interest of the accused patent infringers should speed this along. My best wild guess - and its only that - is a settlement before the 4th of July.
SkunK


This from the same 2005 article:
 
Free Blog CounterTamron