Ethanol Producer Magazine - New NEWS!
It looks like the SkunK sees TWO things that really caught his attention in this article. The first:
"The company (ICM) is now saying it will also defend Lincolnland Agri-Energy LLC."
The second:
"There are other facilities on the list of 15 ethanol plants that were designed and built by ICM but that don’t utilize ICM oil extraction technology. The company will defend ethanol plants that have purchased ICM’s Tricanter technology, a company spokesperson said."
Although it does not specifically say it, to the SkunK this implies that if an Ethanol Plant bought all the parts required to infringe the GreenShift Patents from ICM, and even purchased other support from ICM, but did not buy the specific "Tricanter technology", they are on their own. What if they had purchased a tricanter centrifuge in the ICM blowout sale and set up their own COES. Apparently not covered.
Notice it says plants "designed and built by ICM" are also not automatically covered. Does this include the basic corn oil extraction systems that are apparently a part of the these plants? We know they exist as a part of the plants and ICM says they designed and built some of the plants. Its an open question as to who built the apparently infringing COES. It seems ICM is claiming these plants do not utilise ICM oil extraction technology? At least as defined by ICM - as only their "ICM Tricanter technology?"
Another question is who engineered/advised on the placement of the valves and input/outputs required to properly place the non-patented COES unit? Was this done to knowingly infringe the patents? To the SkunK this decision to limit indemnity is based on going over the numbers of what it could cost to provide indemnity - and then limiting that to the smallest portion of the industry possible. As I said before this number must be kept small - and over a small period of time - to remain credible.
If one of these non-covered plants fits into the scenario above that I just suggested - settles with GreenShift - I anticipate their next move might be to cover any cost associated by filing suit on anyone who helped design, encouraged or sold parts to them specifically designed to infringe - and that might include any number of parts suppliers in the industry.
SEE IT HERE
SkunK
TYPOs! "The company also warns that it has a right to royalties for the corn oil extracted with GreenShift technology back as far as 2006, when the company got its first patent." This should read "published its first patent." It got its first COES patent on 13 Oct 2009.
"The company created and submitted the patent in May 2009." Man thats just wrong . . . They got a notice of allowance then.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I get most of what you're saying here, but you lost me in two places.
"Does this include the basic corn oil extraction systems that are apparently a part of the these plants? We know they exist as a part of the plants and ICM says they designed and built some of the plants."
AND
"Another question is who engineered/advised on the placement of the valves and input/outputs required to properly place the non-patented COES unit? Was this done to knowingly infringe the patents?"
I read the article but couldn't place these statements. Were you referencing something else?
Thanks.
Just deduction.
Only the red font was quotes from the article. From the article some "...other facilities on the list of 15 ethanol plants that were designed and built by ICM..." are not being covered by the ICM legal defense.(Only those that bought the tricanter technology) We suspect that all 15 have corn oil extraction units of some kind in those plants built and designed by ICM - thats why they are in the suit. My question is: Does ICM also have liability if they provided the centrifuges, pipes, inputs, outputs, tanks pumps and everything needed to infringe the GreenShift patents? If they did and just denied imdemnity to such a plant? That plant might be very motivated to pursue a GreenShift license and recover damages in court against anyone who sold thm product and led tham to infringe.
Thanks
Interesting. My take on this was that since ICM said they would defend anyone using their technology, then any plant not being represented by them must be using someone else's technology. I think there are quite a few companies that provide extraction technology. It makes me wonder how novel this concept really is if so many different companies are obviously able to do this.
Thanks for the response.
"I think there are quite a few companies that provide extraction technology. It makes me wonder how novel this concept really is"
The very short answer to that is the Ethanol Industry went 24 years 1980-2004 and no one put a coes in the back end of an ethanol plant.
After Greenshift invented in 2004 and applied for a patent, presented to the industry in 2005, published their patent in 2006 - all of a sudden a lot of people got the idea! It helped to have the technical material in the patents and all of a sudden it became obvious1.
ICM signed a Non Disclosure agreement and bought two units from GreenShift - THAT gave them a head start on all the infringers.
http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2010/03/icm-ceo-were-looking-for-work.html
Post a Comment