Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, GS CleanTech Corporation, for its Second Amended Complaint against Defendants, GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc., Ace Ethanol, LLC, ICM, Inc., David J. Vander Griend and DOES 1 - 30.
19. Upon information and belief, the main purpose of the indemnification agreements provided by ICM under the control of and at the direction of Vander Griend, is to overcome the deterrent effect that the patent laws would have on the Defendants.
20. Upon information and belief, by virtue of the actions taken by Vander Griend, who is in control of ICM and its operations, Vander Griend possessed specific intent to encourage ICM's customers to infringement one or more claims of the '858 patent and knew or should have known that his actions would induce ICM's customers to infringe one or more claims of the '858 patent. By virtue of the actions taken by Vander Griend, who is in control of ICM and its operations, Vander Griend has actively aided and abetted ICM in actively inducing its customers to infringe one or more claims of the '858 patent.
Preliminary Injunction Vs ICM
The preliminary injunction will enjoin Defendant, ICM, Inc., its agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from infringing the claims of United States Patent
7,601,858.
Westfalia's Amended Complaint
Even though Flottweg and Poet are aggressively seeking patents for a "version" of Corn Oil Extraction. Even though GreenShift has two issued COES patents and an allowance for a third. Even though an ever growing portion of the industry has accepted a GreenShift's license for their patented process. Even though the SkunK has NOT yet heard of a laundry deployed at an ethanol plant . . . here is Westfalia's take on the United States Patent Office's decisions:
ICM's Amended Complaint
SkunK
Posts
4 comments:
Westfalia and ICM's responses are quite damning for GERS. If Cantrell and others did as they suggest, we are in BIG trouble!
ICM an Westfalia's responses hold as much water as a gallon of 200 proof ethanol.
The amended claims are substantially identical. they're exactly identical just more specific.
If it was so obvious to Westfalia, why didn't they offer corn oil extraction until after Greenshifts invention was made public?
Westfalia started selling them in 2005 and failed to mention the 050 patent in 2004.
Sorry, I just don't see these big companies leaving the oil trapped in the byproduct for 25 years when they "knew how to do it all along."
They happene to start doing it after Greenshift sold machines to ICM.
Unpantentable? tell that to poet and flottweg.
If you step back an look at everything ICM has said, you see that their story keeps changing.
Any careful, thorough, and unbiased review of these issues reveals ICM's arguments to be self-contradictory and "flailing". They are just throwing up every conceivable argument they can to see what sticks. And, in doing so, their story keeps changing and contradicting itself.
I agree, ICM continues to change their tune. If the methods were so "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art", then why did ICM sign a non-disclosure agreement and buy two systems from Greenshift? Surely ICM, the builders of the ethanol industry, would be described as having ordinary skills of the art.
ICM obviously didn't think it was very obvious back then. Greenshift tought them how to do it!!!
Post a Comment