Saturday, May 29, 2010

BlueFlint - Restricted Access

The SkunK wondered out loud what was going on over at WI Grain Producer getting a one month extension HERE.  Now we see that Blue Flint got an Extension to 10 June HERE and HERE  and HERE.
But what really interests the SkunK is what we see on the Docket for this case:

"(FILED IN ERROR) STIPULATION to Extend Time to Answer by Blue Flint Ethanol LLC. (Campbell, Donald) Modified on 5/26/2010 to restrict access to document. (rm) (Entered: 05/26/2010)"

It allows the SkunK to try and see the document but the only thing that comes up is:

"You do not have permission to view this document."

Why would we be denied access if it was simply a standard request for an extension.  What reasons for the extension where given that cannot be released to the public involving a public reporting corporation and an LLC??  Is this hiding some hint of negotiation? As you can see on the docket below, the STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer was issued the same day and signed by both parties.  Only ten days and not 30?  Something is up.  As they say on the boob tube:  I'll report, you decide.

SkunK
SEE ENTIRE DOCKET HERE (Once you see it click on it twice)

SkunK note:  Notice the "Stipulation to extend time to answer" (Request) and the "Stipulation extending time to answer" (Approval) are two separate documents.  Although we can see the approval - we have no access to the request.
************************
************************
WOW - Now now that's an EXTENSION!
Get a load of this Extension coming out of the mini-soda court:
We can pretty much write off any docket news out of there for a while . . .

Friday, May 28, 2010

Blue Flint did not return calls . . . By The AP!

The Daily News
BISMARCK N.D. (AP) — A New York company that says it invented a process to help manufacture ethanol is suing a North Dakota plant for patent infringement.


GS Clean Tech Corp. filed the complaint in federal court against Blue Flint Ethanol LLC, which operates a plant at Underwood.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction to stop Blue Flint from using the process, which recovers corn oil from a byproduct of ethanol. A judge granted Blue Flint an extension until June 10 to respond to the lawsuit. Officials with the company did not return repeated phone messages left by The Associated Press

SEE IT HERE
AND
HERE AS WELL

SkunK

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Independent Research Co Initiated GERS Coverage today.

Emerging Stock Report, a leading provider of sector specific independent investment research, today initiated coverage on Greenshift Corp. (OTCBB:GERS).
SEE article HERE
SEE ANOTHER HERE
************************
Thanks to a reader who emailed me the link,
and
Thanks to 'Tamas Nagy' on the I-Hub who left this link to the 273 page PDF report for everyone:
Go directly to SEE THE REPORT HERE
SkunK

United WI Grain Producers re Extension

United WI Grain Producers requests a one month extension; GreenShift concurs (and also signs the request); extension granted.
SEE IT HERE
*************************
05/25/2010 11 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER **

ORDER granting 10 Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Answer. Answer due 6/28/10. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/24/10. (krj) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
************************
The brief states:  "There is good cause to grant the requested extension of time."  Hopefully this "good cause" is movement towards a negotiated win/win outcome. 
 
SkunK
Here is GreenShifts original complaint against WI Grain Producers filed 3 May 2010.

Cardinal - More than a year to resolve . . .

*************
Actually Cardinal bought the equipment "from" ICM.  It is no longer "ICM's equipment" that they are using to extract the corn oil.  No, it is no longer someones else's equipment.  Click Here for the Entire Cardinal May 2010 Newsletter and see a copy big enough to read!
SkunK

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Investigation of Relationships - Part 1

There are a LOT of interconnections in these COES patent cases.  People who have worked for years for ICM become Ethanol plant managers and decision makers.  The Ethanol plant buys the non-patented ICM COES.  I will cover some of those things later.  Here are some other connections.

For now - here are a couple items that got my interest and you can draw your own conclusions - if any.  Links follow each quote:

Sam Cogdill, Chairman and CEO, {Amaizing Energy} Age 58, 3737 155 th Street, Dunlap, Iowa 51529 . Mr. Cogdill graduated from Iowa State University with a degree in Agricultural Business and Accounting. Since 1979 he and his brothers, Pat and Frank Cogdill, have owned and operated Cogdill Farm Supply Inc. with Mr. Cogdill serving as President. He is also owner and operator of a cash grain farm. Mr. Cogdill was a founding board member at Lincoln Way Energy LLC of Nevada, IA and has served as Chairman, CEO and Director of Amaizing Energy Holding Company since inception. Previously, he served as Chairman, CEO and Director of Amaizing Energy, L.L.C. Mr. Cogdill served as Chairman and Director of Amaizing Energy from its inception in June 2001, and as CEO of Amaizing Energy from November 2006 through its merger into Amaizing Energy Holding Company. p.111 see Here

******************
Here is an EPA interaction with Mr. Sam Cogdill including 4 counts and a consent agreement apparently involving the improper sale and distribution of pesticides.  Mr. Cogdill's signature is on page 10: 

"Respondent shall pay a civil penalty, for the violations cited herein, in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($19,200.00) plus interest."
SEE ALL HERE

SkunK

Thanks to a reader for help on this.

Amaizing Defendants

Here are yesterday's filed denials and counterclaims from "Amaizing Defendants", aka "Counterclaimants".

"The Amaizing Defendants deny the David Cantrell and David Winsness invented a novel process and that they demonstrated, for the first time, that efficient extraction of the corn oil trapped in the dry milling byproducts was economically feasible."

And here is a new one:
"The Patent is unenforceable based upon misrepresentations to the patent office." 
Wow! This is a bold statement, that in the SkunK's opinion, both attempts to impugn the integrity of the inventors and the competency of the Patent Office. {This blog researches the experience of the primary examiners} I read it to say the inventors lied to the PTO - and the PTO, who has spent their career researching patents in this and related fields, wasn't sharp enough to catch it.  I find it "amaizing" that the statement is unreferenced and "amaizingly" devoid of detail.

Upon information and belief, each and every claim of the ‘858 Patent are invalid on the grounds that the subject matter sought to be patented therein fails to comply with the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, United States Code, including, but not limited to, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 and 112."

SEE IT HERE

SkunK

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Motion to Move and Amaizing Response

Yesterday, Big Rivers makes a motion to reassign Case No.1:10-cv-02727, GS Cleantech Corporation v. Center Ethanol, LLC and Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC to the U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT.


"For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court find Case No. 1:10-cv-02727, GS Cleantech Corporation v. Center Ethanol, LLC and Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC to be related and thus reassign it to this court's calendar."
See It ALL HERE
*************************
Also see this VERY Amaizing Response by Lincolnway LLC, to the GreenShift Lawsuit.  It seems a lot is either acknowledged or accepted.  Some other stuff is claimed to be not known - so it is not denied.   The seemingly only defense is that the patent office issued a patent for something that is not novel.  Gee Whiz - they were not supposed to do that!  They also specifically deny the GreenShift inventors were the first to demonstrate an economically way to extract corn oil.  However, I do not see a reference?

Heck the SkunK has to admit that Corn Oil Extraction is not novel now, but I think the issue is:  Was it novel when they applied for the patent?  I am not a patent lawyer, so I am not sure if saying that many in the industry are violating the patent - so therefore it is no longer novel - is a strong defense ???? . . .

SEE IT ALL HERE
SkunK

Monday, May 24, 2010

Monday Morning Stocks to Watch

Top OTCBB Volume Stocks to Watch: (GERS, TADF, IVOI, ZVTK, UNCO, ARTS)

GreenShift Corporation (OTC:GERS) develops and commercializes clean technologies that facilitate the use of natural resources. GreenShift does this by developing and integrating technologies to produce biofuel and other biomass-derived products.
SEE HERE
********************
SkunK

Sunday, May 23, 2010

INVENTORIES

From the recent 2009 Annual Report p35 we learn this about Inventories:

"Due to the long lead times to obtain some components, the Company’s GS COES (Yorkville I), LLC subsidiary maintains an inventory of centrifuges and related parts. Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost being determined by the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. Equipment inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost being determined by the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. These inventories consist of equipment and component parts not yet assigned to projects."

Inventories at December 31, 2009 . . . consist of the following:  Equipment inventories $ 547,056
*******************
Looking at the 1Q we see that Inventories have INCREASED by $2,248,302 to $2,795,358.  You can see this exact amount moved over from "Construction in Progress" to inventories in the end of Year report. 

The explanation on page10 1Q:

"On January 4, 2010, the Company announced its execution of an agreement with Global Ethanol, LLC (“Global”), pursuant to which the Company granted Global the right to use GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction technologies at Global’s 100 million gallon ethanol plant in Lakota, Iowa. Under the terms of the agreement, Global directly built a facility based on the Company’s patented corn oil extraction technologies designed to extract more than 2.2 million gallons per year of corn oil in return for an ongoing royalty payment. As a result, during the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Lakota project that was on the books was cancelled and the $2,248,302 in related equipment from the Lakota project was transferred from construction in progress to inventory. This equipment will be used in subsequent projects."

So what does all this mean?  Well the SkunK's best guess is Global Ethanol bought and installed 2 centrifuges and related items on the open market for their 100mmgy plant.  This released GERS' two COES they had preordered for that purpose to inventory - so I suspect the main Centrifuge and related parts are on the books for about $1.124M each.  I suspect the 547K that was already in inventory represents a third system that has been depreciated on the books - but still unused and still worth the same to us non-accounting types.  So we basically have the nucleus of three systems in inventory and ready to go.
********************
Thoughts

Like a barn full of hay, this inventory is like money in the bank - and can be liquidated in an absolute emergency.  Its a bit of a BK buffer. The fact that they are not yet being liquidated (like some other non-patented COES) - seems to suggest that these "subsequent projects" may be close at hand?

SkunK

Friday, May 21, 2010

Eleven Companies are Under Scrutiny . . .

Eleven Companies are Under Scrutiny Over GreenShift's Oil Extraction Patent

GreenShift Corporation is passionate about “clean energy” and plans to further develop their technologies for extracting oil from corn. The company warns that competitors who choose to infringe on their patented intellectual property are going to end up paying much more for their oil production. Both parties would benefit if they were to alternatively negotiate with GreenShift and license the patented techniques.

SEE ALL HERE

SkunK

1Q Released!

Key Highlights

The following summarizes important recent developments:

Commodity Sales We produced 673,218 gallons of corn oil at our owned corn oil extraction facilities during the first quarter 2010, and another 2,352,574 gallons during the year ended December 31, 2009; this oil was sold for $1,271,501 and $3,301,473 during the respective periods.

Debt Repayment We satisfied $1,629,527 in convertible debt during the first quarter 2010, and another $5,670,000 during the year ended December 31, 2009, through the issuance of common stock.

Working Capital We received $908,726 in net cash proceeds from financing activities during the first quarter of 2010 and another $3,821,670 during the year ended December 31, 2009, which funds were used for general working capital purposes.

Patent Protection We have initiated legal action to defend against infringing use of our patented technologies. We estimate that as many as 40 ethanol producers are infringing on our patented technologies today; we recently initiated suit against 15 of these producers.

Proven Win-Win Alternative We have demonstrated that infringement is counter-productive, and that ethanol producers can make more money by working with us to take advantage of our process knowledge and expertise to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of using our patented technologies.

New Agreements We recently entered into license agreements with two ethanol producers corresponding to about 220 million gallons of annual ethanol production. These agreements provide for royalties payable to GreenShift based on the use by the relevant ethanol producers of our patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction technologies. Together, these ethanol producers are currently producing more than 350,000 gallons of corn oil per month and more than 4.2 million gallons of corn oil per year with our patented technologies.
************************
We received proceeds from financing activities totaling $1,254,243 during the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Viridis Capital, LLC ("Viridis"), Minority Interest Fund (II), LLC ("MIF"), Acutus Capital, LLC("Acutus"), and management personnel continue to provide us with the cash resources we require for our overhead needs, including all legal expenses incurred in the prosecution of infringing use of our patented technologies. Viridis is owned by our chairman, MIF is owned by a family member of our chairman, and Acutus is owned by our chairman's attorney and former professor. These investors collectively provided us with a total of $3,821,670 during the year ended December 31, 2009 and another $1,254,243 during the first quarter of 2010.


In total, Viridis (along with our chairman personally and an entity held in trust for the benefit of our chairman's wife (the "Kreisler Trust")), MIF, Acutus and current management have provided GreenShift and it's affiliated companies and subsidiaries with more than about $12,670,769 in cash between January 1, 2005 and March 31, 2010. Viridis, the Kreisler Trust and our chairman collectively loaned $8,175,980 of this cash amount, about half of which was subsequently canceled, forgiven and contributed to shareholders' equity.

The number of outstanding shares of common stock as May 20, 2010 was 13,608,278,721.

********************
More to come,
SkunK

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Lets add 'nother to the List

The SkunK recently tried to list Ethanol Plant Corn Oil Producers that have non-patented COES.  I guess that they are like High School acquaintances of the opposite sex:  A list of possible future partners and/or future litigants.  SEE BLOG HERE.  In the comments section a reader said to check out Adkins Energy in Lena IL  Thanks!  It took me a while to catch up - but it seeme there was some substance to that tip. . .

First you have to remember the Ethanol Industry is now in stealth mode - especially when it comes to corn oil production.  Many Ethanol plants have chosen to stop filing publicly with the SEC - and their LLC status gives them some options to communicate directly with the stakeholders through direct mail and/or passworded sites. 

If we go to the Adkins HOME PAGE HERE we can still see some hints.  Go to the bottom of the home page and look for the "CORN OIL" icon, bottom, center.  Click on it and you go to the products page - however no (longer a) write up on corn oil.  Intriguing - but not proof.  After all they could have stopped.

If we 'skunk' around a little we can find their "notifications"  and wha-la!  Listed under the "First Quarter Compliance Report dated 10 May 2010 - they have a "Corn Oil Extraction System Permit No: 07050002.  What would they need a Corn Oil Extraction System Permit (as recently as last week) for?  Extracting Corn oil with a non-patented COES is my only guess.

If we take a ride in the "Way back machine" and look at their old archived websites we see they had a "COES permit status" uploaded as early as 12/22/2006.   Seems they have been in the non-patented corn oil extraction business for a while.

Just so we can keep all this on a timeline - lets review:
1.  Aug 2004 Clean Tech filed first COES Provisional Patent Application “050”
2.  2004 Inventors Disclosed Technology to ICM. ICM executed Confidentiality Agreement. ICM purchases two authorized COES.
3.  2005 The Inventors invited Ethanol manufacturers to symposium to hear about COES – 30% attended.
4.  May 2005 Clean Tech filed first COES Non-Provisional Patent Application “859”
5.  23 Feb 2006 '858 patent publication date.
6.  22 Dec 2006 Adkins Energy uploaded "COES Permit Status" to their web site.

SkunK

Insight into the Corn Oil Industry

Here is part of this Monday's filing for LAKE AREA CORN PROCESSORS, LLC out of Wentworth, South Dakota.  Looks like they are producing at a rate just under 1mmgy of corn oil.  They are believed to have a non-patented COES and are not yet in GreenShift litigation. (click to related Blog).

"During the first quarter of 2010, we sold approximately 1,772,000 pounds of corn oil [rate of 932,632mmgy @7.6#/gallon] compared to approximately 331,000 pounds of corn oil during the first quarter of 2009. This increase in the number of pounds of corn oil that we sold was the result of the fact that we only operated our corn oil extraction equipment for a short period of time during the first quarter of 2009. The average price we received for our corn oil during the first quarter of 2010 was approximately 79% higher than the price we received for the first quarter of 2009. This was an increase of approximately $0.11 per pound. Management attributes this increase in corn oil prices with rising energy prices. Management anticipates that corn oil prices will be stable or may fall depending on the demand from the biodiesel market. Currently most biodiesel production in the United States is idled due to the fact that the biodiesel blenders’ tax credit was allowed to expire. Corn oil can be used as the feedstock to produce biodiesel. We may experience decreased demand for corn oil if the biodiesel blenders’ tax credit is not renewed. We are continuing to refine our operation of the corn oil extraction equipment and anticipate that this may lead to increased production in the future."

See it HERE page 18

SkunK

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

NT-10Q

As you can see in the FULL TEXT part of the NT-10Q, it was accepted 17 May 2010 at 1610 EST.  GreenShift now has 5 additional calender days to file. 

SkunK

Turned up the Heat. . . a major Green Patent Story!!

Don’t Mess With GS: GreenShift’s Ethanol Patent Enforcement Roadshow

GS CleanTech Corporation (GS), a wholly owned subsidiary of GreenShift, has recently turned up the heat on a host of ethanol producers, firing off complaints in courthouses across the midwestern United States.

According to the ‘858 Patent, whole stillage contains valuable oil but prior processes for recovering this oil have been expensive or inefficient.


GS’s patented method includes mechanically separating the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage and then running the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated byproduct, or syrup. The syrup is fed through a second centrifuge, which separates usable corn oil from the syrup.

By my count the complaints filed this month bring GS’s patent enforcement total to nine lawsuits, which suddenly makes this a major green patent story. Stay tuned

*********************
SEE it ALL HERE
 
SkunK
 
Nice Blog and Really good links to all the Pacer filings . . .
 
Big River Resources Galva
Amaizing Energy Atlantic
Center Ethanol
Bushmills Ethanol
United Wisconsin Grain Producers
Blue Flint Ethanol
Iroquois Bio-Energy

Monday, May 17, 2010

The Bigger they are . . . The harder . . .

Ethanol Plant Designer Delta-T Head to Auction Block

Hit by lawsuits and a tough corn-ethanol economy, ethanol plant designer Delta-T goes to auction next week, according to the Virginia Gazette in Williamsburg, Va.

The auction represents what has been the fastest collapse of any business in the long history of greater Williamsburg, the Gazette said. In 2007 energy company Bateman Litwin purchased Delta-T from its founders for $45 million.

Delta-T's focus increasingly turned toward filing and defending litigation, as lawsuits are pending in Williamsburg-James City, York-Poquoson and federal courts.


The auction is scheduled for Friday starting at 11 a.m. outside Delta-T.

(Virginia Gazette, Jan. 23, 2010)

DTN: In recent months it was announced that ICM Inc., one of the nation's largest ethanol plant designers, was shifting its focus to biomass-related projects. Prior to that shift ICM made significant cuts to its staff during the economic recession. That came about because the number of corn-ethanol construction projects is down to a trickle. Banks are hesitant to finance more corn ethanol projects, and banks are not excited to fund cellulosic-ethanol projects at this point. (Todd Neeley)

SEE it all HERE
**************************************
Is there a lesson here somewhere?  No, Todd Neely's last paragraph did not say "In a completely unrelated story . . ."
SkunK
Thanks to a reader for the insight
Sometimes History is full of lessons.
The rise and QUICK fall of an Ethanol Plant Building Icon
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=2463

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=845&q=&page=all

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3706

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5608

http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4551&q=Bateman&category_id=41

First Quarter Report

1Q due today, expect to see a NT 10-Q filing near or after the close of market today.  The five day extension is automatic and normally used. 

HERE is the best site if you want to see it first:

SkunK

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Saving 20% royalty. Losing 40% production?

The SkunK covered the problem Golden Grain LLC was having getting their non-patented COES up to speed in his 21 March blog HERE.

"We are continuing to fine tune the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. We continue to experience reliability issues with the corn oil extraction equipment."
****************
Now we hear like words from Cardinal Ethanol HERE p.22 on 14 May

"We are currently operating at 60% of the designed capacity of our corn oil extraction equipment. We are working with ICM, Inc. to fine tune the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment and hope to have the equipment operating at 100% capacity in the near term."

In a surprise move they also point out that this quarter was actually better than last year:

"Our corn oil sales increased in the three month period ended March 31, 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009 as a result of increased production this last quarter. . . "

These Corn Oil Extraction Problems from an otherwise squared away Ethanol Plant. . .

"The ethanol plant continues to produce ethanol and distillers grains at a rate that is in excess of our nameplate production capacity of 100 million gallons per year."p22



SkunK

Minnesota CornerStone

Ethanol producers sued over corn oil technology

May 14, 2010, 8:06 pm

Read down to "Our Take:"
That is something at least a little different

SkunK

We are not sure yet . . .

Lincolway's 10Q is out and here are two interesting items:

"Lincolnway Energy is unable to determine at this time if the Complaint will have a material adverse affect on Lincolnway Energy."p32

"For the six months ended March 31, 2010 there were reported sales for excess syrup and corn oil of $708,537. . ." p21
SEE IT HERE
***************************** 
At 20% royalties this would be $141,707.40.  At treble rates that is $425,122.20.  Of course that is a small period of the time they have been running since the patents were published in 2006.  Its my best guess, royalties are accuring. . .
*****************************
Royalties Are Accruing

GreenShift has a statutory right to reasonable royalties for every pound of corn oil extracted with GreenShift’s technologies beginning as early as February 23, 2006, the publication date of GreenShift’s first patent.

ICM’s Claims Were Rejected

Cardinal and ICM appear to rely solely on the hope that the court will invalidate GreenShift’s patents based entirely on information considered and rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) prior to the issuance of GreenShift’s patents. GreenShift believes that this argument is especially weak and that it must fail. Cardinal and ICM argue that GreenShift’s inventions were obvious and unpatentable. That is simply not the case. ICM previously raised the information that it believed invalidated GreenShift’s invention and failed – the PTO considered and rejected the materials raised by ICM prior to the issuance of GreenShift’s first two patents in October 2009. Any producer that relies upon ICM’s continued claims of invalidity does so at its own peril.
*************************


SkunK

Thursday, May 13, 2010

The World According to SkunK - Part II

The Inventive Process
Invention is a very creative process.  An open and curious mind enables one to see beyond what is known. Inventors think outside of the box. "Hell, there are no rules here — we're trying to accomplish something new". - Thomas A. Edison. Seeing a new possibility, a new connection or relationship can spark an invention. Inventive thinking frequently involves combining concepts or elements from different realms that would not normally be put together. Sometimes inventors skip over the boundaries between distinctly separate territories or fields.

This Inventive process is exactly what happened in the Invention of a profitable, workable COES.  It was not the very smart Ethanol people who invented the patented COES.  People with multiple degrees, some with up to 24 years of experience building Ethanol Plants, walking past DDGS full of corn oil day after day - they did not invent the patented COES.  As the SkunK pointed out - parts supplies who helped to build the Ethanol industry from 1980 to 2004 had some $2.4 BILLION motivations to invent the process - yet failed to.  One can actually say they "COST the industry $2.4 BILION dollars" of wealth that could have been reinvested in the industry.  Those very same companies JUMPED to profit once they "discovered " it sitting in GreenShift's metaphorical garage. (more on that in Part III)

The Inventive process in this case involved ". . . combining concepts or elements from different realms. . . "

Some Ethanol people look at the Inventors from GreenShift and say "they did not grow up in the Ethanol Industry" so they obviously must not have invented COES!  As the SkunK just pointed out - if you know something about the inventive process - it normally takes someone outside the realm - coming in with different ideas,  different experiences, to take a giant step forward. 

That is NO insult to the people in the industry - the SkunK, being a small investor himself,  has every respect for the farmer investors who invested in - and built this industry.  Farmer investors took all the capital risks and proved Ethanol Plants profitable - and THAT led to the flow of big outside money into the Industry.  That led to farmers being rewarded - and rightfully so. 

GreenShift (and its small investors) took all the capital risks and proved COES profitable and patentable - but now big money is working hard to bleed this small company dry - so they can profit without cost from the work of others.  It would be like ADM or Poet or Pacific Ethanol showing up at a Farmers' Owned COOP Ethanol Plant one day and just start changing the locks on the doors.  That should not set well with anyone. Intellectual property is as real as any property.

Combining concepts or elements from different realms is a well known facet of the inventive process.  When one looks at the COES inventors they see this was the case.  Bringing knowledge and experience earned in the chemical, food, pharmaceutical, power generation, meat processing, vegetable oil processors, poultry sciences and civil engineering.  The founder and GreenShift technicians also brought decades of experience in resource extraction in traditional industries.
David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer
Mr. Winsness is a graduate of Clemson University (B.S., Mechanical Engineering 1991) and has spent his professional career as a process engineer in the chemical, food, pharmaceutical and power generation markets. Prior to joining GreenShift, Mr. Winsness served as chief technology officer and eventually chief executive officer of Vortex Dehydration Technology where he directed the research, development and commercialization of a technology that is now GreenShift's Tornado Generator™.

Greg Barlage, Chief Operational Officer

Mr. Barlage's experience includes 15 years of process engineering, manufacturing optimization, maintenance and operations management with a leading food products company. For the 6 years prior to joining GreenShift, Mr. Barlage worked for Alfa Laval, a global leader in heat transfer, separation, and fluid handling solutions. There he was responsible for all capital equipment sales to the meat processing and vegetable oil processors in the U.S.  This system operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week and also uses Alfa Laval heat transfer and centrifuge components in conjunction with the Tornado Generator™ to produce high quality animal fats, chicken broth and dehydrated poultry proteins.

David Fred Cantrell - Graduate of the University of Georgia where he received a Masters Degree in Poultry Science and Statistics.

John W. Davis - John "Whit" Davis, has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and an M.B.A from Boston University. Mr. Davis holds the rank of Lt. Commander as a reservist with the U.S. Coast Guard.

SkunK

The World According to SkunK - Part I

During the 24 years between 1980 and 2004 some very smart people did some important things . . .

. . . Some very smart people designed and built a new Ethanol Industry!
. . . Some very smart people industry-wide produced nearly 30 BILIONS of gallons of ethanol.

yet . . .

. . . ALL of these smart people lost out on $.079/gallon of extra value or some $2.4Billion Dollars
. . . ALL of those smart people lost out on a $1Million dollars a year/plant in energy savings.
. . . ALL of those smart people lost out because they fed less digestible feed to dairy cows, beef cattle, swine, chickens and turkeys.
. . . ALL of those smart people dealt with DDGs that did not flow well
. . . ALL of those smart people failed to design a single back-end extraction system in their ethanol plant.
. . . ALL of these smart people put 18% more tons of carbon into the air than needed.

WHY DID THEY DO THIS?
It was not because they where not smart . . .

They did these crazy things because GreenShift had not invented CORN OIL EXTRACTION yet! 

Why is the SkunK pointing these things out?  Because some of the infringers are trying to make the argument that GreenShifts Corn oil Extraction Patents are really nothing special.  ANYONE could have done it so it does not deserve a patent.  The most damning argument against that is "Well, then why didn't they invent it before 2004?  They had 24 years to do it! 

Well?

SkunK

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Update Central

Here is an update on many of the recently served Ethanol Plants.  These pretrial filings and motions will not stop while the gears of the JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION continue to grind away.

The Central Ethanol plant has seen an update - answer is due 25 May 2010 and a status hearing is set for 13 August 2010 at 9:30am.

The Iroquois Ethanol Plant's answer to GreenShift's complaint is due 26 May 2010.

The Blue Flint Ethanol Plant's answer to GreenShift's Complaint is due 27 May 2010.

The Bushmills, Al-Corn, Chippewa Valley and Heartland are all due with responses by 26 May 2010.

The links above should get you to a screenshot of the filing.  You may have to click on the document to get a version large enough to read.  The SkunK figures the deadline for the defendants to file an answer are automatically set (21days?) depending on when they were served with the original GreenShift Filings.  The few Plants that are not listed here should be coming out soon after their reciept for the filings has been entered.  So all responses should be due the last full week of May.  Notice Central is the only one with a status hearing although I figure this will be the next step along the road for them all.

SkunK

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

GreenShift adds to list

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.

Bloomberg Businessweek - Mainstream!

GreenShift, Google, Yum, Mattel, PepsiCo: Intellectual Property
(This is a daily report on global news about patents, trademarks, copyright and other intellectual property topics.)  May 11 (Bloomberg) -- GreenShift Corp., a New York-based company that developed and commercialized clean technologies, sued 15 ethanol producers for patent infringement.

The company’s GS CleanTech unit filed six separate patent- infringement suits May 3 in federal courts in Madison, Wisconsin; North Dakota; Chicago; Lafayette, Indiana; Minnesota and Iowa. The ethanol producers -- who make fuel from corn --are located in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota.

All the suits allege infringement of GreenShift’s patent 7,601,858, which covers a method of recovering inedible corn oil from the byproducts of corn-derived ethanol production. The oil can then be used for biodiesel, according to the patent.

GreenShift sued a unit of GEA Group AG for patent infringement the same day that patent was issued in October.

On May 6 GreenShift filed a request with the U.S. Judicial Patent on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all the pending patent suits to one federal court.
GreenShift said it would rather not sue ethanol producers for patent infringement. “We would much rather focus on win-win solutions,” David Winsness, the company’s chief technology officer, said in a statement May 7.
SEE IT ALL HERE
another
iTechWire - Technology Newswire

SkunK

Monday, May 10, 2010

May 10 CEOCAST NewsLetter + + +

CEO CAST NewsLetter

GreenShift Corporation (OTCBB: GERS) 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 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. Shares of GERS remained unchanged for the week, and the year, at $0.0002
**********************
JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

SkunK Pre-Summary
The MDL Panel consists of seven sitting federal judges, who are appointed to serve on the Panel by the Chief Justice of the United States. The multidistrict litigation statute provides that no two Panel members may be from the same federal judicial circuit. They meet for arguments every two months.  The next meeting is 27 May in Chicago.  Since the schedule was made April 22, 2010, the GreenShift case will not be expected to be included in Chicago.  The next meeting will be July 29, 2010 - in Boise, Idaho.  I expect to read the GreenShift case in the published schedule by the end of June.

Within twenty twenty-one days after filing of a motion, all other parties shall file a response thereto.p9  No extensions are granted for filing a notice of opposition.  Failure of a party to respond to a motion shall be treated as that party's acquiescence to the action requested in the motion. The motion and brief to vacate the CTO are due 14 days after the notice of opposition is filed with the Panel. Failure to file your motion and brief timely will be treated as a withdrawal of opposition. The movant may, within seven days after the lapse of the time period for filing responsive briefs, file a single brief in reply to any opposition.

The way the SkunK see it:
So everyone has 21 days from 6May to say if they are against it (27May?) - otherwise they are for it.  Then they got 14 more days (10June?) to make a motion and brief it on paper.  GreenShift then has seven days to answer the opposition. (18June?). Then it gets scheduled - hopefully by end of June for July 29th. A notice of hearing is sent out to counsel approximately 45 days prior to the hearing date. (14 June?) It may be oral brief or just paper depending on the judges wishes.  Two weeks or so after that we know whats up and where the cases are headed for pretrialUnder current case law, centralization is available for pretrial purposes only.  So if approved - the pretrial portion likely gets sent to a single location and all the motions are made and witnesses statements are taken.  It then would be sent back to the original court for trial.  I figure that by now in the scenario one might see where one is headed and that's why most of these patent cases are settled before it goes to a jury.  
***********************
1.  The SkunK would assume that independent Ethanol Plants that are handling their own defense have the most to gain - and least to lose by a peal-off early settlement.  If stakeholders can see that others have doubled their production for a 20% royalty - how do you argue for the risk and expense of a federal court decision with accruing royalties against multiple issued patents? 

2.  The SkunK figures that the Ethanol Plants that have signed on to a joint defense by a parts supplier are in a tighter situation.  If they gave up the right to run their defense they might not have the ability to settle on their own.  Even if they could they might have hindered their ability to recover damages from the parts supplier who they might believe put them in the infringement situation in the first place.   

I understand situations have developed where the infringer who had settled from under the cloak of an indemnity have had to later take the indemnity provider to court and basically prove that 1.They themselves were infringing.  This to force the indemnity provider to pay up.  They basically have to prove themselves guilty - a strange situation. (thanks to a reader for the link) 

3.  The last entity that wants a settlement is the parts supplier.  They will lose much if any settlement takes place.  They will lose business.  This expanding COES business may be a huge percentage of the Ethanol construction business in the years ahead.  It is doubtful that we see the new plant building we have seen in the last five years again soon.  They also may be liable for lawsuits from every plant who claims to be damaged by being enticed to buy a non-patented product.  This seems to the SkunK to be a slippery downhill road.  The further it is traveled (or one traveling along with indemnity) - the harder it becomes to reverse course.
**********************
Here is some Quotes mostly off their Web Site:
 Thus, in most circumstances, when pretrial proceedings have been completed in the transferee court, the Panel—typically acting upon a formal suggestion issued by the assigned transferee judge—remands any remaining pending actions to their
transferor courts.


Selecting the “right” transferee judge is critically important, because the success of an MDL largely turns on the work of that judge and the parties. Typically, the Panel seeks a judge with some existing knowledge of the involved cases or the issues presented. Ultimately, however, the willingness and motivation of a judge to undertake the often substantial additional responsibilities of an MDL are the most important attributes.

Although we cannot offer a definitive date, the Panel generally holds hearing sessions every two months. Hearings are traditionally held during the months of January, March, May, July, September and November. Shortly after a hearing session has concluded, the next hearing session is scheduled. A notice of hearing
is sent out to counsel approximately 45 days prior to the hearing date. The notice of hearing is also available as a PDF document on the Panel website. The Panel rules quickly, usually issuing all of its orders within two weeks of the hearing session.

SkunK

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Digging through the new Filings . . .


The SkunK has tried to put together some more of the new original documents for all interested parties.

Here is a 20 page GreenShift PDF filing that makes the argument presented to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Here are two spots that seem to agree that more litigation is on the way:

"Transfer and Consolidation Will Promote Efficient Pre-Trial management of any New Actions
Given the success of CleanTech’s corn oil extraction technology in the ethanol industry, and the fact that the ‘858 patent will not expire until at least January 3, 2028, CleanTech anticipates that it will pursue many additional actions against other ethanol manufacturers and/or extraction system suppliers. Pretrial transfer in a situation like this “will have the salutary effect of providing a ready forum for the inclusion of any newly filed actions in centralized pretrial proceedings.” P11,12

"Also, given that most of the ethanol manufacturers are located in the mid-western part of the United States, it is very likely that any one of the proposed three transferee forums would be geographically central to most – if not all – of the tag-along infringement actions that CleanTech anticipates will be filed." p.16

This PDF above also is a very good summary where we now are.
*************************************

The SkunK has found the initial request to consolidate the litigation:
Here is the 10 page PDF request to move

Summary of the Westfalia filings

NEW!!!!
Chippewa Falls Ethanol Company pays fine, and it costs StakeHolders $120K. 
Date: 2010-05-03
"In Benson, Minnesota, the Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company has agreed to pay penalties of $70,000 cash and $50,000 in supplemental environmental project costing to resolve alleged violations of the company's air quality permit. The violations which are deemed to have occurred in 2008 and 2009, revolved around the operations of the plant's biomass gasification unit and the burning of wood contaminated with lead or arsenic."  Also Here (half way down page) and at the CVEC web site HERE.

SkunK NOTE:  To put the fine above in perspective with the patent infringement litigation - If we assume that CVEC is producing 1.5mmgy of corn oil ($1.75/g) and they have been knowingly infringing GreenShift's patents (at treble damages) [{1.5m/12=.125m }{.125m x 7 x $1.75 x .6 = $918,750}], since the first patent issue about seven months ago, then they have already have damages @ over $900K.  (Not including possible pre-issue royalties @ 20% rate going back as far as patent publishing, legal costs, court costs,  fees, interest, fines etc.).  Just the treble royalty damages at the above rates are accumulating for Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company (and other plants) at about $4,315 a day. 

Royalties are Accuring  GreenShift has a statutory right to reasonable royalties for every pound of corn oil extracted with GreenShift’s technologies beginning as early as February 23, 2006, the publication date of GreenShift’s first patent.

SkunK thought:  As one can see from the list of  GreenShift patented COES top of right column, many in the Ethanol Industry have started with - or recently moved to get a GreenShift License

SkunK

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Other Corn Oil Producers

The SkunK was wondering if he could find any corn oil producers that were not already known GreenShift partners or known GreenShift patent infringement litigants.  This is what he found in the SEC filings over the last couple years.  Click on the name and go to the link and you will see what I based it on.

1.  Golden Grain Energy LLC p.17 - We continue to experience reliability issues with the corn oil extraction equipment. See Previous SkunK Blog Here

Lake Area Corn Processors, LLC p. 5  - During our 2009 fiscal year, we commenced operating our corn oil extraction equipment which allows us to separate some of the corn oil contained in our distiller’s grains.

3. Granite Falls Energy, LLC p. 4 - "Over the past 12 months we have installed corn oil extraction equipment at our plant."

4.  Siouxland Ethanol, LLC p.31 - In December 2008, the Company began extracting corn oil using the temporary equipment with installation of the permanent equipment expected in early calendar year 2009.

5.  Little Sioux Corn Processors LLC*33 "Our revenues are derived from the sale and distribution of our ethanol, distillers grains and corn oil throughout the continental United States.".

Many Ethanol Plants no longer have to make public their filings and keep them private with "members only" login protected portions of their web sites - or direct mailing to stakeholders.  So the mining of useful Ethanol Industry information within public records has gotten a bit sparse over the last few years.  I have no doubt that this case helped to motivate some to take their filings off line.

If you know of another plant that could be in the list above drop me a note.
********************
*The SkunK believes that one Little Sioux COES was an early adopter authorized GreenShift model. "Little Sioux Corn Processors, a 50 MMgy plant in Marcus, Iowa, began using GreenShift’s technology in the spring of 2006." The second one, after the plant expanded is not believed by the SkunK to be a Greenshift model, although I could be mistaken.

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The Move to Consolidate

It looks like there has been an attempt by the defendants in this case to declare victory after the initial stays to await the Kansas decision.   However, GreenShift has just grabbed the initiative by laying down a huge third wave of litigation on Monday and then - yesterday moving to request that ALL cases be consolidated.  Not in Kansas, Not in New York, but in . . .

****************************
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 5, 2010, Plaintiff, GS CleanTech Corporation, and its parent, GreenShift Corporation, sent for filing, via Overnight Mail, a motion to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") seeking to transfer and/or consolidate the eleven actions listed below to the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana or the District of Minnesota for consolidated pretrial proceedings:
The Actions

1. GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc. and Ace Ethanol, LLC. v. GreenShift Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-7686 (Southern District of New York);

2. GS CleanTech Corporation v. GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-8642 (Southern District of New York);

3. ICM, Inc. v. GreenShift Corporation and GS CleanTech Corporation, Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-1315 (District of Kansas);  

4. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00180 (Southern District of Indiana);

5. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Big River Resources Galva, LLC, et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00990 (Northern District of Illinois);

6. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Center Ethanol, LLC and Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-02727-EEB (Northern District of Illinois);

7. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Bushmills Ethanol, LLC; Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC; Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLLP; and Heartland Corn Products, LLC, Civil Action No. 0:10-cv-01944-PJS/FLN (District of Minnesota);

8. GS CleanTech Corporation v. United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00236-WMC (Western District of Wisconsin);

9. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Iroquois BioEnergy Company, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-0038-JVB-PRC (Northern District of Indiana);

10. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00037 (District of North Dakota); and

11. GS CleanTech Corporation v. Amaizing Energy, LLC and Lincolnway Energy, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-04036-DEO/PAZ (Northern District of Iowa).

SEE IT HERE

SkunK

PS.  After adding in the ACE plant in Stanley WI, we are now at total estimate of 15 plants with of 905 - 928.5mmgy ethanol production under litigation for infringement of the GreenShift Corn Oil Extraction patents. Range varies due to difference in some faceplate capacity and claimed rate of production. Big River Resources West Burlington is not listed above - but after some loud SkunK head banging he figured out that it is included in Big River Resources Galva, LLC, et. al.

"et. al" is latin for "and others"  I guess all you Lawyers, Jesuit Priests and Roman Centurions already knew that :~).

What Next?

The first shoe dropped in a huge wave of litigation on Monday.  No annoucement from the Company.  Why?  Is something else even bigger on the way or is there another wave to come?  What has the SkunK feeling all tingly?  Is it a rash?  Will the second shoe drop today or next week?  Why the huge up volume at the open today?  Its all got me feeling a bit reflective this morning . . .

Pacific Poet Haiku 

the litigation
might be all? but I doubt it
SILENCE thunders loud

SkunK

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Patent Litigation Central

If your just coming up to speed, here is a running update on the patent litigation story.  Over the last seven months and more - GreenShift has gotten the word out about their patents being approved and their new license offer for the Industry - to use their patented Corn Oil Technology.  GreenShift gave fair warning and then only reluctantly began litigation - first with the parts suppliers - then with three initial Ethanol Plants.  GreenShift then promised this to shareholders in their recent Annual Report:

"The Company intends to file additional lawsuits involving any and all infringing use of the Company’s patents. The Company’s position is that any infringing ethanol producer is liable for a minimum of reasonable royalties for any infringing use of the Company’s patented technologies beginning on the publication date of the ‘858 Patent. The Company intends to seek additional relief for instances of intentional infringement."p.54

Here is an excerpt from a recent Press Release:

“We are disappointed that litigation is necessary, particularly given the strength of our patents, but we must and will take action to defend against all infringing use of our technologies,” said David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer."

On Monday May 3rd, the company filed their huge second wave of Ethanol Plant litigation.  With estimates of as many as 40 plants infringing on the GreenShift patents - we may see more waves to follow.  Everyone would be happier if more plants would accept the GreenShift License - and move to a win/win situation.  Here is a summary/links below:   
 
Indiana Northern District Court
1. Iroquois Bio-Energy Company LLC 40mmgy 
North Dakota District Court
2. Blue Flint Ethanol LLC 50mmgy 
Illinois Northern District Court
3. Amaizing Energy Atlantic, LLC 55mmgy (Complaint)
4. Lincolnway Energy, LLC +50mmgy 
Minnesota District Court.
5. Bushmills Ethanol, Inc. 49mmgy 
6. Al-Corn Clean Fuel 46.5mmgy 
7. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLLP 46mmgy 
8. Heartland Corn Products 95mmgy 
Illinois Northern District Court
9. Center Ethanol, LLC 54mmgy 
10. Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC 48mmgy 
Wisconsin Western District Court
11. United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC 53.2 - 60mmgy 
*****************************
In addition, three other Plants were already under litigation:
Southern District of New York
12. Ace Ethanol, LLC 43mmgy
13. Cardinal Ethanol (100mmgy)
14. Big River Resources (92mmgy)
15. Big River Galva (100mmgy)

Total estimate of 15 plants with of 905 - 928.5mmgy ethanol production under litigation for infringement of the GreenShift Corn Oil Extraction patents.  Range varies due to difference in some faceplate capacity and claimed rate of production.


More detailed information is in previous blogs - but I thought I needed to list things up to date so we can keep track. 


SkunK
 
Free Blog CounterTamron