Blue Flint's Response

Blue Flint's Response:  SEE ALL HERE

Here is a Definition:  Prosecution History Estoppel - which seems tied to the argument that the provisional and the issued patent are not exactly the same.  As the SkunK might have mentioned before, this argument only involves when GreenShift can start collecting royalties from its issued patents.  Not if, . . . only when.  Can they collect back to 17 August 2004 and the provisional patent??  Can they collect back to 23 February 2006 and the required publishing of the patent - and all had access to the technology??  Can they collect back to October 13, 2009 when the patent was actually issued?  Not if, . . when.

Now here is the part that I really find interesting.  How can Blue Flint claim as a defense against infringing the GreenShift patents - that the provisional patent is not the same as the issued patent - whether it is or not seems irrelevant - since according to this article they started producing corn oil in Mid December 2009 - well after the finalized patents were issued???

HERE is the GreenShift Request for Relief 3 May 2010

SkunK