Friday, May 7, 2010

GreenShift News!

GreenShift Press Release!
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- GreenShift Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: GERS) today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, GS CleanTech Corporation (“GreenShift”), has commenced legal action against eleven additional ethanol producers for infringing on GreenShift’s U.S. patent covering corn oil extraction technology. The following is a list of all current ethanol producers alleged to infringe the ‘858 Patent and now named in GreenShift’s pending infringement suits:

The new complaints allege that the named producers are infringing GreenShift’s U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, titled "Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the ‘858 Patent), which covers processes for recovering corn oil from whole stillage, a precursor to the distillers grain co-product of corn ethanol production.
 On May 6, GreenShift submitted a "Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings" to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") located in Washington, D.C. In this motion, GreenShift has moved the Panel to transfer and consolidate all pending suits involving infringement of GreenShift’s patents to one federal court for orderly and efficient review of all pre-trial matters.
 Proven Win-Win Alternative
“Infringement is counter-productive; infringing producers can expect to pay more to produce less oil at significant exposure that increases with each pound of oil extracted,” said David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer. “We have many millions of dollars and years of hard work invested into our patented corn oil extraction technologies and we are prepared to prosecute our rights for as long as may be needed. That said, we would prefer not to litigate and we would much rather focus on win-win solutions – we have demonstrated that producers can make more money by working with us than without us. All infringing use of our patented technologies needs to stop and all parties should instead refocus their energies and resources on continued innovation and value creation.”


Ethanol Producer     Location
1. Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC West Burlington, Illinois
2. Center Ethanol, LLC Sauget, Illinois
3. Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC Palestine, Illinois
4. Cardinal Ethanol, LLC Union City, Indiana
5. Iroquois BioEnergy Company, LLC Rensselear, Indiana
6. Amaizing Energy, LLC Denison, Iowa
7. Big River Resources Galva, LLC Galva, Iowa
8. Lincolnway Energy, LLC Nevada, Iowa
9. Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC Claremont, Minnesota
10. Bushmills Ethanol, Inc. Atwater, Minnesota
11. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP Benson, Minnesota
12. Heartland Corn Products, LLC Winthrop, Minnesota
13. Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC Underwood, North Dakota
14. ACE Ethanol, LLC Stanley, Wisconsin
15. United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC Friesland, Wisconsin

Also named in GreenShift’s pending infringement suits are ICM, Inc., of Colwich, Kansas and GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc., of Northvale, New Jersey based on each company’s alleged infringement via the sale of equipment for use in a manner that infringes the ‘858 Patent.
***********************
SEE all HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE now in the GreenShift PressRoom HERE
***********************
***********************
Looks like the SkunK ONLY story - that he started to report on Monday at 2:01pm, after catching the first filing coming over the RFC Express "most recent cases" - then backed up by Pacer research - has now been confirmed by this company Press Release.  Maybe the rest of the Ethanol Industry Press will run with this MAJOR ETHANOL INDUSTRY STORY!  That is - if their NEWS Department has the "right stuff" to stand up to their ADVERTISING department!! 

In my opinion, the sooner the infringing COES portion of the Plant Ethanol Industry is presented with the real financial risks they are running with continued patent infringement - and the sooner those risks can be diffused  - the better off the industry will be.   If these risks are not difused they may quickly rise above the ability of any Industry etity to indemnify. 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
The Chief Justice of the United States appoints the members of the JPML, which is composed of seven district or court of appeals judges, each of whom must be from a different judicial circuit. In addition to their participation on the Panel, the members continue to serve as judges for the courts to which they were originally appointed. As of September 30, 2009, the Panel had transferred more than 320,000 lawsuits in more than 2,100 multidistrict litigations. These dockets encompass litigation categories as diverse as securities fraud, drugs and other products liability cases, intellectual property infringement, airplane crashes and employment practices.

SkunK

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The sooner the Plant Ethanol market is educated to the real risks they are running with continued patent infringement (with or without the possible empty promise of so called unlimited indemnities) - the better off the industry will be."

This is a pretty bold statement coming from someone who has admitted he doesn't know much about the ethanol industry. In this case, the only education needed in on your part, Mr. Skunk.

Anonymous said...

Here is the math. 15 Plants producing nearly a billion gallons are under litigation. At only 1.1mmgy per year of corn oil/50mmgy of Ethanol that is about 22mmgy corn oil. At $1.75/gallon for corn oil - at 60% (treble royalties) - that is 22x$1.75x.6=$23.1Million for each year. This litigation may escalate to 40 plants. That could be over three times this or over $70Million a year. It has already gone over six months since first patents were issued. If we go for 24 months more to a jury verdict the penalites could well be over $175 million. Now lets add court costs, the time between the patents published and the time they were issued and we have well over $200million. Who in the industry can fullfill indemnities representing well over $200million?

If they do not have that kind of money on hand to cover an indemnity - then it is indeed empty and is a siron song that may ultimately damage the industry.

Show me where I am wrong and I learn real good.

Good Luck
JMHO

PS I believe the Robert Duvall (Ned Pepper)quote is "Thats mighty bold talk for a one eyed fat man" :~)

Anonymous said...

Any offer of indemnity that does not take into account the worst case scenario is not an indemnity -it is a bluff.

Anonymous said...

You’ve missed the point. I’m not here to argue “facts” (although I will state for the record I disagree with your numbers and your rationale). While you didn’t explicitly say it, it seemed as though you were implying that the industry “just doesn’t get it”. That somehow, the teams of lawyers, financial analysts, boards, banks, insurers, managers, etc. (it’s certainly a long list of people) involved in assessing these opportunities just aren’t educated in this space. Although not stated by you, Mr. Skunk, other posters here have shown their prejudice against the industry as well as the agricultural community, most of the time suggesting that the industry lacks intelligence. I realize that you, Mr. Skunk, have no say over what people put here (except to delete it if you wish) and people are entitled to their opinions. However, I was bothered by the fact that YOU seemed to be suggesting the lack of industry intelligence. I apologize if that was not the case.

Anonymous said...

As humbly as I can manage, this is the way I see it. :~)

Both sides have teams of lawyers, financial analysts, boards, banks, insurers, managers, etc - and they will all do just fine reguardless if their side wins or not. The only thing I am sure of is - when this is over - one group or the other of highly paid professionals will be wrong - and their stakeholders will pay the dues.

Neither side lacks intelligence and I could be no more against the Ethanol Industry or farmers than I could be against myself. I grew up on a 80 acre farm. I have close relatives who still farm on a large scale, own Ethanol Plant Shares and feed DDGs.

I really believe that Ethanol Plants that bet the stakeholders fortune against issued patents; where infringement is not denied; where the prior art claims were already rejected; where royalties are accuring at treble rates; are frankly irresponsible.

What I tried to point out is that indemnification may look good to the bean counters for a few plants for a few months. But as we have seen this week the number of plants went up from 3 to 15 plants. Believe me when those bean counters redo the math on Monday they might not be smiling. And that 15 could easily climb to 40.

These indemnification numbers will grow expodentially and can quickly overcome any ability to cover the costs of the plants involved. A promise that cannot be covered is worse than no promise at all.

I can only suggest everyone continue to do their(own)due dillegence. If you find me making an error of fact please point it out to me. I try to form my opinions based on them so I want them to be right.

Thanks for the conversation and Good Luck

 
Free Blog CounterTamron