Here are yesterday's filed denials and counterclaims from "Amaizing Defendants", aka "Counterclaimants".
"The Amaizing Defendants deny the David Cantrell and David Winsness invented a novel process and that they demonstrated, for the first time, that efficient extraction of the corn oil trapped in the dry milling byproducts was economically feasible."
And here is a new one:
"The Patent is unenforceable based upon misrepresentations to the patent office."
Wow! This is a bold statement, that in the SkunK's opinion, both attempts to impugn the integrity of the inventors and the competency of the Patent Office. {This blog researches the experience of the primary examiners} I read it to say the inventors lied to the PTO - and the PTO, who has spent their career researching patents in this and related fields, wasn't sharp enough to catch it. I find it "amaizing" that the statement is unreferenced and "amaizingly" devoid of detail.
Upon information and belief, each and every claim of the ‘858 Patent are invalid on the grounds that the subject matter sought to be patented therein fails to comply with the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, United States Code, including, but not limited to, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 and 112."
SEE IT HERE
SkunK
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I keep seeing it stated that the original 050 application is significantly different from the 858 patent. I haven't been able to find the 050 application to compare it to the 858 patent. A few years ago I did look up the 050 application and one thing that stands out is type of centrifuge. I remember it specifically saying stacked disk centrifuge--the 858 says any centrifuge. Have you been able to compare the two?
Also, it is my understanding that patent officers (is that the right term?) rely on the applicants to "teach" them about the product, process, industry, etc. It is possible that the patent officer didn't have the correct information. Industry terminology varies--it would be easy to confuse terms. I've read the 858 patent and it seems to me that part of what is listed was already part of the distillation process. I'm not sure why those parts were allowed in the patent.
Thanks.
Not distillation process--evaporation process. Sorry :)
"the original 050 application is significantly different from the 858 patent."
I do not know if any changes between the provisional and the issued patent will be found to be significant. Whether they are or not will only determine the starting point for royalties - it has nothing to do with the validity of the patents.
For instance if the patents are found to be significantly different than the provisional - then royalties may only go back to the 2006 publish date - or at the very worse case - the day the patents were issued.
In either case the argument is only how much - not over whether royalties will be paid.
As far as the patent office being easily misled and not understanding their job - I do not think that accurately reflects the 5 year process of a patent issue.
The time line seems to me to be the most devestating common sense defense of these patents. If it was so easy to invent - Why did no one do it in the 24 years from 1980-2004?
Thanks for the comments
I believe that by consolidating the cases of the offenders we will gain strength for our victory and collection of future royalties. Just sit tight and watch. thanks to the skunk for his help.
i know its only an opinion.. but if gers wins the lawsuit or gets a settlement. how much will it move the stock in your opinion
Post a Comment