Another GreenShift Filing in the Cardinal Case
Introduction
Cardinal asks this Court to effectively delay this case indefinitely, including CleanTech's motion for preliminary injunction. All the while, as it has already publicly touted, Cardinal will continue to willfully infringe CleanTech's patent, which is directed to the extraction of corn oil from the by-products formed during ethanol production. Cardinal's assertion that venue in Indiana is improper is baseless. Not only is venue proper in Indiana, Cardinal has already agreed that the motion for preliminary injunction should be heard by this Court in April. In the joint motion related to scheduling for the preliminary injunction, nowhere does Cardinal take issue with venue. That is because there is no basis whatsoever to claim or even suggest that venue is improper in Indiana. Looking behind the scenes, this motion is nothing more than a stalling tactic that is part of a larger war of attrition waged by ICM, Inc., the manufacturer of the equipment used by Cardinal and other direct infringers to infringe CleanTech’s patent. ICM and the direct infringers like Cardinal hope that CleanTech is put out of business long before its claims are heard on the merits. Putting aside the underlying reason for this motion, the sole basis for the motion - improper venue - is fatally flawed because venue in Indiana is undeniably proper.
***********
This motion is really geared toward supporting the war of attrition that has been waged against CleanTech. Staying this case pending completion of briefing, hearings and decisions on the Pending Kansas Motions will certainly be a battle victory because, at a minimum, the preliminary injunction hearing will be delayed indefinitely. During this delay, Cardinal will continue to willfully infringe the '858 patent. In fact, Cardinal's president, Jeff Painter, actually publicly touted in a recent press release that Cardinal will continue to infringe the '858 patent by stating that during the litigation in Indiana "Cardinal expects to continue to operate its oil recovery system." (Ex. C) Cardinal's continued infringement as well as the currently occurring industry-wide and seemingly uncontested infringement of the '858 patent that will continue during this delay may very well drive CleanTech out of business. This is the very result that ICM and its customers like Cardinal are hoping to achieve. As such, the granting of this stay would be an effective denial of the pending motion for preliminary injunction.
SEE IT and READ IT ALL HERE:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcY2IyMjE1MWYtYzg1OS00NjBhLWI5NGItY2E4NmQ1ODdjOWQz&hl=en
SkunK
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
ICM's lawyers have invented a novel legal defense ... the Vander Griend Plea.
In a Vander Griend Plea, the defendant admits guilt, but transfers the blame for the crime to the plaintiff.
In recent news, a bank robber tried to use the Vander Griend Plea when charged with robbing a bank in broad daylight, a crime that was witnessed by 20 bank customers, not to mention recorded by security camera's.
"Yes, your honor, I did rob the bank," the defendant stated, "but, it was the bank's fault for keeping so much money around in the first place."
When asked about the widespread use of this novel, legal strategy, David Vander Griend stated briefly, "My company, ICM, has filed for US patent protection on this novel legal strategy. We plan to charge the legal profession a fee of $10,000 each time they use the Vander Griend Plea in a court of law."
The defense team really does seem to be floundering around ... scrambling to delay the inevitable.
Their arguments are disjointed, lacking conviction and coherence.
That's because they don't have a good case to begin with.
Post a Comment