BIG RIVER

HERE are some excerpts from the GreenShift filing. Link below. . .

INTRODUCTION
"Galva is an ethanol manufacturing facility located in Galva, Illinois that began producing ethanol in 2009. Sometime after it began ethanol production, it implemented an infringing corn oil extraction system. West Burlington is also an ethanol manufacturing facility. It began ethanol production in or around early 2008 and began using an infringing corn oil extraction system shortly thereafter."
p.2

Big River's Infringing Corn Oil Extraction System
1. West Burlington and Galva are both extracting corn oil. Both West Burlington and Galva are large ethanol manufacturers. Both extract corn oil from the by-products of the ethanol using a corn oil extraction system. This has been confirmed in various ways. In its April 2008 newsletter, Big River Resources, LLC3 set out that in 2007 “oil extraction project began” in West Burlington. (Ex. C, "The Pipe Line", Vol. 2, Issue 2, April 2008, p. 2.) River Resources also set out that it intended to "implement [a] corn oil extraction system" at Galva in 2008. (Id.) Big River Resources further stated that the "oil extraction project continues to move forward as the equipment is installed and optimized for quantity and quality of nonfood grade corn oil. We anticipate full production as we move out of April and into May to provide corn oil to the bio-diesel industry." (Id. at p. 3). In October 2008, Big River Resources touted the success of the corn extraction process at West Burlington by disclosing that production through September 2008 included "476,465 gallons of non-food grade corn oil", that they "have been very pleased with our corn oil extraction process as we currently produce 5 gallons per minute for a daily production of 7,000 gallons of corn oil marketed for Bio Diesel production, and that the corn oil extraction system "provides additional economic efficiency for Big River Resources." (Ex. D, “The Pipe Line”, Vol. 2 Issue 4, October 2008, p. 3). Information from Galva demonstrates that it too is extracting corn oil from ethanol byproducts. Typically oil content in ethanol by-products is 10.5% to 12.5% or higher prior to corn oil extraction. (Winsness Decl. at ¶ 7.) In October 2006, before either West Burlington or 3 Big River Resources, LLC is believed to be the parent company of West Burlington and Galva. Galva was extracting corn oil, West Burlington provided a sample of its distiller grains with solubles ("DGS") to Iowa State University for purposes of evaluating the use of the DGS for breeding heifers. (Ex. E, “Modified Distillers Grain with Solubles Stored for an Extended Period used to Develop Breeding Heifers,” p. 1). The fat content of the 2006 West Burlington sample - before West Burlington was extracting corn oil - was 13.57 %. (Id, Table 1). Today, with corn oil extraction now occurring at West Burlington, the fat content of the DGS is 9-10.5% fat - obviously less than the 13.57 % fat content in 2006 prior to extracting corn oil. (Ex. F, West Burlington Feed Bids). The fat content of the DGS for Galva is identical to the that of West Burlington, that is 9-10.5%. (Ex. G, Galva Feed Bids). The fact that the fat content of the DGS produced by Galva is identical to the DGS produced by West Burlington shows that Galva is extracting corn oil. (Winsness Decl. at ¶ 8.) Lastly, just recently, Big River Resource's General Manager, Jim Leiting provided confirmation to CleanTech's Chief Technology Officer that both West Burlington and Galva are extracting corn oil. (Id., ¶ 9.)
p. 4-6

CONCLUSION
The facts set out above establish that Big River's use of CleanTech’s patented corn oil extraction technology is causing irreparable harm to CleanTech. Further, CleanTech is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims; the balance of hardships favors enjoining Big River's further infringing use of CleanTech’s patented technology; and granting such an injunction will serve the public interest and promote others to invent and utilize the patent system. For all the foregoing reasons, CleanTech respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for a preliminary injunction. p. 30

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDQwMzMxODktMjJhNy00MThjLTg1MTctMWM5YzQ5MDBlNjE3&hl=en

SkunK