Cardinal Steps Back, ICM Swings Back

ICM enters lawsuit on Cardinal Ethanol side
News release posted Feb. 17, 2010

ICM Inc. announced Feb. 16 that it is defending Cardinal Ethanol LLC in legal action commenced February 12, 2010, in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana by GS CleanTech Corporation (“GS CleanTech”). The suit alleges that Cardinal Ethanol’s operation of an oil recovery system manufactured and installed by ICM Inc. infringes a patent claimed by GS CleanTech.

“ICM will defend its customers as a companion matter to ICM’s own litigation against GS CleanTech and its affiliate, GreenShift Corporation, which we filed in Kansas in October 2009. ICM believes that GS CleanTech’s alleged patent claims will be proved to be invalid. In the Kansas litigation, we have asserted that GS CleanTech/GreenShift misrepresented the liability of ICM’s customers for operating the ICM system, and that various actions of GS CleanTech/GreenShift constitute unfair competition and wrongful interference with ICM’s existing and prospective business and contractual relationships. Our customers continue to operate their oil recovery systems acquired from ICM, and we continue to see strong interest from prospective customers for further orders for ICM’s equipment,” said Chris Mitchell, ICM vice president of marketing.

Jeff Painter, Cardinal Ethanol president and CEO stated, “ICM will be defending Cardinal in the Indiana litigation; because the litigation involves our operation of ICM equipment, we are directing all further inquiries to ICM. In the interim period, Cardinal expects to continue to operate its oil recovery system.”

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=6379

SkunK
OPINION: The fact that ICM sent out the vice president of marketing to announce a legal action has to mean something. . . With the little I know about risk aversion in decision makers, the statement that interest is still strong in buying a non-patented COES system that has ongoing patent infringement cases against it - spread around the country - seems a bit like a strong wish. I am sure I am reading too much into this, but Cardinal does not seem to take a position in this article, only that it is using ICM equipment and ICM will handle the litigation - and the questions.
If at some point a judge issues a preliminary injunction - stops a specific plant from using a non- GERS COES while the patent litigation drags on - that will - in the SkunK's humble, unlearned opinion - be a game changer. I think if and when that happens, their will be NO interest in future non-patented COES from any source. Everyone who is running a non-patented COES will as nervous as the SkunK in church (with two old girlfriends cackling together behind him.) Nobody wants to be left making the payments on a car you can't drive. (The car driving metaphor is not intended for those of you making payments on an ex-wife - no matter how fitting - thats a metaphor for a non-patented COES up on blocks due to a preliminary injunction . . . )
I am not a patent lawyer and I am a investor in Greenshift. Will that affect my opinion? Well yeah . . . and before anyone blows a gasket cause I got an opinion on an opinion blog check out my disclaimers at the bottom of the blog. :~)