All the patent litigation (still awaiting Adkins) has been centralized by the MDL for all pretrial motions and rulings into the Southern Indiana District federal court under Judge Larry J. McKinney. An earlier blog showed the court taking charge and laying out the ground rules.
Now we have the defendants sending in their defenses. Some defenses appear like new angles to me, while others are very familiar. All seem to trigger an immediate "Wait a minute, what about . . ." response from the SkunK; although I am a GreenShift Investor and therefore look at things through my GreenShift tinted glasses. I will try to lay out some arguments later, but if a consensus of readers think their is a particular strong argument by the accused infringers, let me know and I will know where to focus my research. SEE DEFENSES BELOW:
AL-CORN (old Minnesota district defense filing resubmitted. By mistake?)
AL-CORN (amended) (already?)
BUSHMILLS
IROQUOIS (note non-standard Affirmative Defenses b1, b2, b3 here?)
There is you reading assignment! You thought you where going to get some yard work done today??? lolSkunK
PS.
In reference to IROQUOIS b1 mentioned above:
• Reduced Energy – Since corn oil is an insulator, removing it improves the heating efficiency and reduces the energy demand of corn ethanol. The EPA projected reductions in thermal energy use of 5.4% due to use of corn oil extraction technology. While GreenShift believes the energy savings are substantially greater (i.e. 10% projected by GreenShift?), the EPA’s estimate corresponds to industry-wide savings of about $160 million per year at current market prices at the 70% penetration rate projected by the EPA.
So, lets see if I follow this: Since GreenShift projects "approximately 10%" and the EPA uses 5.4% energy savings to compute their figures, we can ignore an issued patent. And how do they plan on proving GreenShift was wrong about the 10% energy savings if they do not admit they were using Greenshift's exact technology? I wonder if they will switch their offices to electric heat this winter to keep that electric bill up? lol
In reference to IROQUOIS b1 mentioned above:
• Reduced Energy – Since corn oil is an insulator, removing it improves the heating efficiency and reduces the energy demand of corn ethanol. The EPA projected reductions in thermal energy use of 5.4% due to use of corn oil extraction technology. While GreenShift believes the energy savings are substantially greater (i.e. 10% projected by GreenShift?), the EPA’s estimate corresponds to industry-wide savings of about $160 million per year at current market prices at the 70% penetration rate projected by the EPA.
So, lets see if I follow this: Since GreenShift projects "approximately 10%" and the EPA uses 5.4% energy savings to compute their figures, we can ignore an issued patent. And how do they plan on proving GreenShift was wrong about the 10% energy savings if they do not admit they were using Greenshift's exact technology? I wonder if they will switch their offices to electric heat this winter to keep that electric bill up? lol
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment