CleanTech has not filed any additional lawsuits alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7,601,858 (the “`858 patent”), but CleanTech reserves the right to file such additional lawsuits alleging infringement of the '858 patent.
SEE HERE
SkunK
Thursday, November 25, 2010
What does it mean?
The GreenShift world is abuzzz about the conversion of 9,931 Series D Preferred Stock to 10B Common shares. Do I know what it means? The quick answer is no. But lets first say 'what it was', then say 'what it aint', and then guess 'what it is'.
WHAT IT WAS
GreenShift's senior creditor is YA Global. YA Global's collateral is the series D Preferred Stock. The Preferred stock is held by Viridis Capital. Viridis Capital is owned by Kevin Kreisler, the founder, CEO and Chairman of the Board, Greenshift. It has always been the case that those shares are locked up. In other words, they cannot be sold. They cannot even be promised. If the CEO were to tell the shareholders that if this or that happens he is gonna get rid of the preferred shares - that would be a violation of the agreement and could put the company in default. This makes it difficult for GreenShift to communicate with shareholders about future share structure - and this information void leaves an opening for others with "various" motives. The reason YA Global keeps this collateral as preferred shares is to protect their investment from dilution/reverse splits.
What it aint'
Well, it appears no one is cashing out or selling out. In "Note 16" below the lock up remains for these new common shares and the remaining preferred shares. They cannot be sold or promised.
"But SkunK, people are saying . . . bad things"
The same people are gonna say bad things about this company whenever news comes out. If the news is bad they will say it is bad. If the news is good they will say it is bad. It is just a fact that some will always say the news is bad. This all may be predictable but not very enlightening . . .
At first blush, the SkunK thought that the only difference in moving these 10B shares from preferred to commons is the shares lose their protection from dilution. Although true, it seems moot since the remaining preferred shares continue to hold the 80% value - and perform their job as the senior creditor's collateral.
These 10B shares seem to have no effect on YA Global. Since these shares have no effect on YA Global's position - but they are controlled by YA Global - the SkunK's guess is it is not only about them - it is about them and someone else.
It is not a bank for deferred employee compensation - that would be done with a different class of preferred.
It is not a bank for litigation lawyer compensation - these shares cannot be promised or sold.
It is not collateral for the Kreisler Family loans - these shares cannot be promised or sold.
It is not about a dividend, the 10K below states that the dividend would be paid without being converted.
It is not about share votes, the 10K below states the preferred votes can be cast without conversion.
Anything inside the box seems to be accomplished easier through the issue of another type of preferred shares?!?
What it is?
The one guess that makes sense to me is we are seeing a share structure build towards a buy in or restructuring. At some point the trigger will be pulled and YA Global will authorize the transfer of these 10B shares to someone buying in. Or they might remain locked up for a period of time or released tied to production goals. Maybe this is in conjunction with the YA Global sale of their 80% share of YA CORN OIL SYSTEMS. In either case, by taking common rather than a new class of preferred - whoever is taking these new shares - the new entity does not seem protected (or worried) about future dilution. That seems at first blush a good omen for common shareholders. Whatever happens - my guess is this is important and something will happen sooner rather than later. Remember, the GE Deal was first announced mid December 2008;
"Tis the Season"
SkunK
***********************************************************
NOTE 16 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS {page 23 - 3Q)
Between October 1, 2010 and November 23, 2010, the Company issued a total of 843,612,286 common shares upon conversion of debt, as well as 10,000,000,000 shares of restricted common stock issued to Viridis Capital, LLC (“Viridis”) on November 19, 2010 upon conversion of 9,931 shares of Series D Preferred Stock held by Viridis, the Company’s majority shareholder. Viridis is subject to a lock-up agreement executed in favor of YA Global pursuant to which Viridis is prohibited from pledging, hypothecating, selling or in any way transferring its common or preferred stock in the Company including the shares described above.
************************************************************
SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK {Page 40 Annual Report 10K/A}
Shares of the Series D Preferred Stock (the “Series D Shares”) may be converted by the holder into Company common stock. The conversion ratio is such that the full 1,000,000 Series D Shares originally issued convert into Company common shares representing 80% of the fully diluted outstanding common shares outstanding after the conversion (which includes all common shares outstanding plus all common shares potentially issuable upon the conversion of all derivative securities not held by the holder). The holder of Series D Shares may cast the number of votes at a shareholders meeting or by written consent that equals the number of common shares into which the Series D Shares are convertible on the record date for the shareholder action. In the event the Board of Directors declares a dividend payable to Company common shareholders, the holders of Series D Shares will receive the dividend that would be payable if the Series D Shares were converted into Company common shares prior to the dividend. In the event of a liquidation of the Company, the holders of Series D Shares will receive a preferential distribution of $0.001 per share, and will share in the distribution as if the Series D Shares had been converted into common shares. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, there were 799,954 and 800,000 shares of Series D Preferred Stock, respectively, issued and outstanding.
WHAT IT WAS
GreenShift's senior creditor is YA Global. YA Global's collateral is the series D Preferred Stock. The Preferred stock is held by Viridis Capital. Viridis Capital is owned by Kevin Kreisler, the founder, CEO and Chairman of the Board, Greenshift. It has always been the case that those shares are locked up. In other words, they cannot be sold. They cannot even be promised. If the CEO were to tell the shareholders that if this or that happens he is gonna get rid of the preferred shares - that would be a violation of the agreement and could put the company in default. This makes it difficult for GreenShift to communicate with shareholders about future share structure - and this information void leaves an opening for others with "various" motives. The reason YA Global keeps this collateral as preferred shares is to protect their investment from dilution/reverse splits.
What it aint'
Well, it appears no one is cashing out or selling out. In "Note 16" below the lock up remains for these new common shares and the remaining preferred shares. They cannot be sold or promised.
"But SkunK, people are saying . . . bad things"
The same people are gonna say bad things about this company whenever news comes out. If the news is bad they will say it is bad. If the news is good they will say it is bad. It is just a fact that some will always say the news is bad. This all may be predictable but not very enlightening . . .
At first blush, the SkunK thought that the only difference in moving these 10B shares from preferred to commons is the shares lose their protection from dilution. Although true, it seems moot since the remaining preferred shares continue to hold the 80% value - and perform their job as the senior creditor's collateral.
These 10B shares seem to have no effect on YA Global. Since these shares have no effect on YA Global's position - but they are controlled by YA Global - the SkunK's guess is it is not only about them - it is about them and someone else.
It is not a bank for deferred employee compensation - that would be done with a different class of preferred.
It is not a bank for litigation lawyer compensation - these shares cannot be promised or sold.
It is not collateral for the Kreisler Family loans - these shares cannot be promised or sold.
It is not about a dividend, the 10K below states that the dividend would be paid without being converted.
It is not about share votes, the 10K below states the preferred votes can be cast without conversion.
Anything inside the box seems to be accomplished easier through the issue of another type of preferred shares?!?
What it is?
The one guess that makes sense to me is we are seeing a share structure build towards a buy in or restructuring. At some point the trigger will be pulled and YA Global will authorize the transfer of these 10B shares to someone buying in. Or they might remain locked up for a period of time or released tied to production goals. Maybe this is in conjunction with the YA Global sale of their 80% share of YA CORN OIL SYSTEMS. In either case, by taking common rather than a new class of preferred - whoever is taking these new shares - the new entity does not seem protected (or worried) about future dilution. That seems at first blush a good omen for common shareholders. Whatever happens - my guess is this is important and something will happen sooner rather than later. Remember, the GE Deal was first announced mid December 2008;
"Tis the Season"
SkunK
***********************************************************
NOTE 16 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS {page 23 - 3Q)
Between October 1, 2010 and November 23, 2010, the Company issued a total of 843,612,286 common shares upon conversion of debt, as well as 10,000,000,000 shares of restricted common stock issued to Viridis Capital, LLC (“Viridis”) on November 19, 2010 upon conversion of 9,931 shares of Series D Preferred Stock held by Viridis, the Company’s majority shareholder. Viridis is subject to a lock-up agreement executed in favor of YA Global pursuant to which Viridis is prohibited from pledging, hypothecating, selling or in any way transferring its common or preferred stock in the Company including the shares described above.
************************************************************
SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK {Page 40 Annual Report 10K/A}
Shares of the Series D Preferred Stock (the “Series D Shares”) may be converted by the holder into Company common stock. The conversion ratio is such that the full 1,000,000 Series D Shares originally issued convert into Company common shares representing 80% of the fully diluted outstanding common shares outstanding after the conversion (which includes all common shares outstanding plus all common shares potentially issuable upon the conversion of all derivative securities not held by the holder). The holder of Series D Shares may cast the number of votes at a shareholders meeting or by written consent that equals the number of common shares into which the Series D Shares are convertible on the record date for the shareholder action. In the event the Board of Directors declares a dividend payable to Company common shareholders, the holders of Series D Shares will receive the dividend that would be payable if the Series D Shares were converted into Company common shares prior to the dividend. In the event of a liquidation of the Company, the holders of Series D Shares will receive a preferential distribution of $0.001 per share, and will share in the distribution as if the Series D Shares had been converted into common shares. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, there were 799,954 and 800,000 shares of Series D Preferred Stock, respectively, issued and outstanding.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
10-Q/A
AMENDMENT NO. 1
This Amendment No.1 on Form 10-Q/A, which amends and restates items identified below with respect to the Form 10-Q, filed by GreenShift Corporation ("we" or "the Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on November 22, 2010 (the "Original Filing"), is being filed in order to correct a typographical error on the cover of the Original Filing with respect to the number of shares outstanding.
As of September 30, 2010, the Company had 2,402,232,719 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. As of November 23, 2010, and as further disclosed in Note 16, Subsequent Events, in the Original Filing, the Company issued an additional 843,612,286 shares of common stock upon the conversion of debt, as well as an additional 10,000,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Viridis Capital, LLC on November 19, 2010 upon conversion certain shares of Series D Preferred Stock. Viridis is subject to a lock-up agreement pursuant to which Viridis is prohibited from pledging, hypothecating, selling or in any way transferring its common or preferred stock in the Company including the shares described above. Thus, the Company had 13,245,845,005 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of November 23, 2010.
SEE HERE
SkunK
hy·poth·e·cate:
To pledge (property) as security or collateral for a debt without transfer of title or possession.
This Amendment No.1 on Form 10-Q/A, which amends and restates items identified below with respect to the Form 10-Q, filed by GreenShift Corporation ("we" or "the Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on November 22, 2010 (the "Original Filing"), is being filed in order to correct a typographical error on the cover of the Original Filing with respect to the number of shares outstanding.
As of September 30, 2010, the Company had 2,402,232,719 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. As of November 23, 2010, and as further disclosed in Note 16, Subsequent Events, in the Original Filing, the Company issued an additional 843,612,286 shares of common stock upon the conversion of debt, as well as an additional 10,000,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to Viridis Capital, LLC on November 19, 2010 upon conversion certain shares of Series D Preferred Stock. Viridis is subject to a lock-up agreement pursuant to which Viridis is prohibited from pledging, hypothecating, selling or in any way transferring its common or preferred stock in the Company including the shares described above. Thus, the Company had 13,245,845,005 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of November 23, 2010.
SEE HERE
SkunK
hy·poth·e·cate:
To pledge (property) as security or collateral for a debt without transfer of title or possession.
Monday, November 22, 2010
3Q is out!
HERE!
The number of outstanding shares of common stock as August 23, 2010 was 1,826,864,030.
The number of outstanding shares of common stock as November 23, 2010 was 13,245,845,005.
The number of outstanding shares of common stock as August 23, 2010 was 1,826,864,030.
Key Highlights
The following summarizes important recent developments:
Licensing | Sales from licensing activities involving the use of our patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction processes were $5,020,992 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, about double the $2,556,123 in licensing sales generated during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. |
Debt Repayment | We will have eliminated 29% of our debt during 2010 upon satisfaction of the closing conditions of the YA Corn Oil Transaction. |
Working Capital | We received $1,433,175 from the issuance of convertible debentures during the nine months ended September 30, 2010, 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 more than 30% of the ethanol industry is infringing on our patented corn oil extraction technologies today. |
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. |
High Yield | We have demonstrated that a properly designed, capitalized, integrated and operated extraction system based on GreenShift’s patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction technologies can produce corn oil at rates in excess of 4 gallons of corn for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced. |
New Agreements | During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, we entered into license agreements with ethanol producers corresponding to more than 900,000,000 gallons of ethanol production bringing our total licensed production to 1,200,000,000 gallons of ethanol. |
Plan of Operations
Our strategy for 2010 involves execution of our plan to build shareholder value by achieving the following fundamental goals:
New Licenses | Execute new license agreements during 2010 with ethanol producers corresponding to an aggregate capacity of at least 1 billion gallons per year of ethanol. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Profitability | Execute new license agreements by the end of 2010 such that GreenShift can achieve profitability when all licensees commence production of corn oil. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Debt Reduction | Continue the 30% debt reduction we realized during 2009 by reducing debt by an additional 30% during 2010. SkunK More Later | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Well Underway!
Looking for a United Ethanol update? Here it is!"As you may recall from the previous newsletter, United Ethanol is incorporating corn oil extraction, which will provide another stream of income, cut overall energy costs, and improve the flowability of our distiller’s grain. The installation of this component is well underway; pipe is being run, the tank is under construction, and materials are coming in daily. Startup is scheduled for some time in December."
SkunK
Will Greenshift Corp own the extraction system, are they selling United Ethanol the equipment, or is this deal based on the 20% royalty?
"announced its execution of a license agreement" (20% royalty, facility owned)
"In addition, GreenShift and United Ethanol entered into a development services agreement pursuant to which GreenShift will provide equipment and services relating to the engineering, construction and ongoing operation of a patented corn oil extraction facility at United Ethanol’s facility."
SEE HERE
Will Greenshift Corp own the extraction system, are they selling United Ethanol the equipment, or is this deal based on the 20% royalty?
"announced its execution of a license agreement" (20% royalty, facility owned)
"In addition, GreenShift and United Ethanol entered into a development services agreement pursuant to which GreenShift will provide equipment and services relating to the engineering, construction and ongoing operation of a patented corn oil extraction facility at United Ethanol’s facility."
SEE HERE
Bet on It?
"Within the next six months, corn oil extraction technology will be installed at all of GPRE’s existing plants. Becker says the project should generate operating income of $15 million to $19 million annually, based on the production of 75 to 90 million pounds of corn oil."
Article in the December 2010 issue Ethanol Producer Magazine - see HERE
SkunK
Article in the December 2010 issue Ethanol Producer Magazine - see HERE
SkunK
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Expect the 3Q Monday
A little history here: The 2Q was due on a Monday (16Aug). When we tacked on the 5 day extension it took us to the following Monday - due to the 2 day weekend.
This 3Q is the same. The 5 day extension was filed on the due date (15Nov) and that makes for a new 22 November filing deadline of the 3Q. If one wanted to highlight the 3Q, a Monday release is certainly better than a Friday afternoon.
Here are the 5 previous 3Q release dates:
23 November 2009
19 November 2008
14 November 2007
16 November 2006
18 November 2005
I expect to see a steady increase in revenues due to more COES on (board and operational) as well as strong corn oil prices. We will not see all the GPRE revenues since they will be building out COES through the 2Q of 2011. Factoring in the burn in period, sure to take place in 3Q 2011, as these machines are tweaked for maximum production, we will not see the FULL benefits of just the deals in place until a year from now. That is, we can expect to see a steady rise in revenues this 3Q - through the next 3Q - even without another deal being inked. I for one, expect the litigation to be settled and many more deals to be struck by then.
Markman hearing will be held on April 25, 2011 - and the results of that should be a key driving force for a settlement. Remember, "any" granting of a preliminary injunction along the way would be an immediate game changer . . .
SkunK
We need to watch for additional cases - since any more infringement cases are due November 24, 2010. Will something be released in the 3Q about this?
The SkunK has been on the road a bit this past week. Looks I will be home for turkey so we got out and visited with some who we not be able to see this holiday week. As if mother nature doesn't provide enough, we saw they were already seeding the slopes. We drove through a whole bunch of the white stuff - so here's hoping you have both some dry wood and powder put away for what's a'coming!
This 3Q is the same. The 5 day extension was filed on the due date (15Nov) and that makes for a new 22 November filing deadline of the 3Q. If one wanted to highlight the 3Q, a Monday release is certainly better than a Friday afternoon.
Here are the 5 previous 3Q release dates:
23 November 2009
19 November 2008
14 November 2007
16 November 2006
18 November 2005
I expect to see a steady increase in revenues due to more COES on (board and operational) as well as strong corn oil prices. We will not see all the GPRE revenues since they will be building out COES through the 2Q of 2011. Factoring in the burn in period, sure to take place in 3Q 2011, as these machines are tweaked for maximum production, we will not see the FULL benefits of just the deals in place until a year from now. That is, we can expect to see a steady rise in revenues this 3Q - through the next 3Q - even without another deal being inked. I for one, expect the litigation to be settled and many more deals to be struck by then.
Markman hearing will be held on April 25, 2011 - and the results of that should be a key driving force for a settlement. Remember, "any" granting of a preliminary injunction along the way would be an immediate game changer . . .
SkunK
We need to watch for additional cases - since any more infringement cases are due November 24, 2010. Will something be released in the 3Q about this?
The SkunK has been on the road a bit this past week. Looks I will be home for turkey so we got out and visited with some who we not be able to see this holiday week. As if mother nature doesn't provide enough, we saw they were already seeding the slopes. We drove through a whole bunch of the white stuff - so here's hoping you have both some dry wood and powder put away for what's a'coming!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Over 5 years ago . . .
The way the SkunK sees it
It now appears that the non-patented COES crowd is hanging their defense on this rusty nail: They are trying to claim prior art - not of some prior inventor - but of the GreenShift inventors themselves? That's right, even through we see claims that the GreenShift COES patents were obvious, it seems they were only obvious to the GreenShift inventors. Why else would you base your claims of prior art - and therefore your defense against infringement - on the prior art of the GreenShift inventors themselves?
Apparently anything discovered by the inventors up to a year before a provisional patent was applied for, is protected under the provisional patent. Then if a patent is tied to that provisional and that patent is issued, no one can claim the prior art of the inventors within that previous year. It appears the inventors were looking to deploy their 'work in progress' at an Ethanol plant in the fall of 2003. They wrote a letter to Agri-Energy dated 31 July 2003 in which they offered to put in a "test module" "oil recovery system". Cantrell makes a statement and offers evidence that letter was not mailed, but hand delivered by him to Agri-Energy 18 August 2003. That date is important since the provisional patent dates back to 17 Aug 2004. Any disclosure made by him to Agri-Energy would then be under the protection of the provisional - and therefore the subsequent patent. I am NOT a patent lawyer and this is just my attempt to understant all this. If you have an insight, please feel free to leave a comment below.
If the patented process had been offered for sale more than one-year before the non-provisional filing date, the patent could be invalid under the statutory bar section of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) unless the patent is entitled to the filing date of the provisional application. It is explained better here
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
. . . (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or. . ."
Cantrell Statement and Agri Energy Letter (I got this through a previous filings in the "patent public porthole".)
ICM's Amended Complaint See end of page 5 and page 6.
SkunK
PS. WOW - this thing has more twists and turns - and plots and sub plots - than the Minnesota Viking's Locker room!
ICM's Amended Complaint See end of page 5 and page 6.
SkunK
PS. WOW - this thing has more twists and turns - and plots and sub plots - than the Minnesota Viking's Locker room!
New Filings
Here are some new filings and what caught the SkunK's eye. I encourage you to read them yourself.
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
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
Monday, November 15, 2010
3Q Extension Filed
We got the standard 5 day extension for the GERS 3rd Quarter Report today. We should expect the 3Q within 5 days.
". . ,will be filed on or before the fifth calendar day following the prescribed due date; . ."
SEE EXTENSION HERE
SkunK
". . ,will be filed on or before the fifth calendar day following the prescribed due date; . ."
SEE EXTENSION HERE
SkunK
Friday, November 12, 2010
Preliminary Injunctions Due COB Monday
GreenShift must file any amendments and additional preliminary injunctions by COB Monday as reported Here and Here.
***************
November 15, 2010, plaintiff amendments to their existing complaints due.
November 15, 2010, CleanTech additional motions for preliminary injunction due.
***************
Also we need to watch for additional cases - since any more infringement cases are due November 24, 2010. Hopefully that approaching deadline will encourage some on the sidelines to settle. Deadline is only about 8 business days away - the day before Thanksgiving. We will either be notified first by Press Release - or you can track the continuous feed/scroll on the site HERE if another infringement case is filed. If you want to do a "search lawsuits" on that site I recommend you copy paste: gs cleantech
Click "all courts" and radio button select at least "patent" - more if you like. You should be able to do a search without even having a log in.
SkunK
***************
November 15, 2010, plaintiff amendments to their existing complaints due.
November 15, 2010, CleanTech additional motions for preliminary injunction due.
***************
Also we need to watch for additional cases - since any more infringement cases are due November 24, 2010. Hopefully that approaching deadline will encourage some on the sidelines to settle. Deadline is only about 8 business days away - the day before Thanksgiving. We will either be notified first by Press Release - or you can track the continuous feed/scroll on the site HERE if another infringement case is filed. If you want to do a "search lawsuits" on that site I recommend you copy paste: gs cleantech
Click "all courts" and radio button select at least "patent" - more if you like. You should be able to do a search without even having a log in.
SkunK
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Solution Recovery Services
Corn LP recently signed a license agreement with GreenShift for their process HERE. Corn LP has now entered into a purchase agreement for equipment with Solution Recovery Services HERE. You can see the Solution Recovery Services website Here.
Solution Recovery Services, on their website acknowledged some 10mmgy gallons of corn oil entrapped in the DDGs of a 100mmgy ethanol plant. They also claim that "Approximately 25-30% of the total available corn oil within the DDGs of a dry mill ethanol plant can be cost effectively separate. . ." That is 2.5-3 gallons of corn oil for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced. That is compared to GreenShift's press release yesterday that stated:
"one of our licensees, the first to have installed our full patented Method I corn oil extraction process, has demonstrated consistent production of more than 4 gallons of corn oil for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced"
SkunK
Solution Recovery Services, on their website acknowledged some 10mmgy gallons of corn oil entrapped in the DDGs of a 100mmgy ethanol plant. They also claim that "Approximately 25-30% of the total available corn oil within the DDGs of a dry mill ethanol plant can be cost effectively separate. . ." That is 2.5-3 gallons of corn oil for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced. That is compared to GreenShift's press release yesterday that stated:
"one of our licensees, the first to have installed our full patented Method I corn oil extraction process, has demonstrated consistent production of more than 4 gallons of corn oil for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced"
SkunK
Monday, November 8, 2010
HIGH Production!
SkunK note: If memory serves, most non-patented COES have shown production of from .6-.8mmgy for a 50mmgy plant. Partial implementation of GreenShift COES have had estimates around 2.2mmgy for a 100mmgy plant. Estimates for a full implementation of GreenShift COES have been always at 3mmgy. Consistent production at 4mmgy is HUGE! Your revenue estimates need to be adjusted accordingly. Remember this is just method 1.
***********************
NEW YORK-( Business Wire )- GreenShift Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: GERS) today announced that its patented corn oil extraction processes have consistently demonstrated record levels of performance.
David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer, said: “We are proud to announce that one of our licensees, the first to have installed our full patented Method I corn oil extraction process, has demonstrated consistent production of more than 4 gallons of corn oil for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced, or more than about 0.83 pounds of corn oil per bushel of corn processed into ethanol.
This rate is equal to more than 60% of the rate predicted by the EPA earlier this year and additional ethanol producer income, net of GreenShift royalties, of more than $0.06 per gallon of ethanol produced at current market prices. While each ethanol plant is unique and has many variables which will affect its corn oil yield, these results are achievable with a properly designed, capitalized, integrated and operated extraction system.”
In the final rule for the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, the EPA stated its prediction that 70% of the U.S. corn ethanol industry will use backend corn oil extraction technology to produce over 680,000,000 gallons of corn oil per year by 2022, a rate which corresponds to about 6.5 gallons of corn oil for every 100 gallons of ethanol produced. The EPA also estimated that ethanol producers using backend corn oil extraction could increase their profit by about $0.079 per gallon of ethanol produced.
GreenShift offers its licensees access to a deep innovation portfolio and extensive process know-how, refined by more than six years of corn oil extraction experience. GreenShift partners with its licensees to deliver win-win solutions, from systems design and integration to ongoing support services, all designed to optimize the benefits of corn oil extraction to meet the specific needs of GreenShift’s licensees.
See ALL Here
HERE and HERE and HERE
SkunK
***********************
NEW YORK-( Business Wire )- GreenShift Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: GERS) today announced that its patented corn oil extraction processes have consistently demonstrated record levels of performance.
David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer, said: “We are proud to announce that one of our licensees, the first to have installed our full patented Method I corn oil extraction process, has demonstrated consistent production of more than 4 gallons of corn oil for each 100 gallons of ethanol produced, or more than about 0.83 pounds of corn oil per bushel of corn processed into ethanol.
This rate is equal to more than 60% of the rate predicted by the EPA earlier this year and additional ethanol producer income, net of GreenShift royalties, of more than $0.06 per gallon of ethanol produced at current market prices. While each ethanol plant is unique and has many variables which will affect its corn oil yield, these results are achievable with a properly designed, capitalized, integrated and operated extraction system.”
In the final rule for the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, the EPA stated its prediction that 70% of the U.S. corn ethanol industry will use backend corn oil extraction technology to produce over 680,000,000 gallons of corn oil per year by 2022, a rate which corresponds to about 6.5 gallons of corn oil for every 100 gallons of ethanol produced. The EPA also estimated that ethanol producers using backend corn oil extraction could increase their profit by about $0.079 per gallon of ethanol produced.
GreenShift offers its licensees access to a deep innovation portfolio and extensive process know-how, refined by more than six years of corn oil extraction experience. GreenShift partners with its licensees to deliver win-win solutions, from systems design and integration to ongoing support services, all designed to optimize the benefits of corn oil extraction to meet the specific needs of GreenShift’s licensees.
See ALL Here
HERE and HERE and HERE
SkunK
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Poet Patent Pending Starts and Stops
The SkunK promised more information of the Poet Patent pending. As you can see below it appears to have been only sent to the examiner the 6th of last month. It is too early to have any response from the patent examiner or even guess what the response will be. Here are some interesting moves below. Looks like they first decided to switch from a utility application to a provisional, then a couple weeks later decided against it. They also recently revoked the power of attorney from one law firm - and then went with another.
12 August 2009 POET request to change from utility application to provisional application
2 Sept 2009 POET withdraws application to provisional application
20 Sept 2010 POET revokes power of attorney from its patent attorney
20 Sept 2010 POET now assign Power of Attorney to Swiss Tanner.
PDF copy of POET Patent APPLICATION
PDF copy of POET Claims
***********************************************
Transaction History
Date Transaction Description
10-06-2010 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
09-27-2010 Mail-Petition Decision - Dismissed
09-27-2010 Petition Decision - Dismissed
09-27-2010 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
09-24-2010 Correspondence Address Change
08-03-2010 Petition Entered
06-16-2010 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
03-11-2010 PG-Pub Issue Notification
09-04-2009 Mail-Petition Decision - Dismissed
09-03-2009 Petition Decision - Dismissed
08-12-2009 Petition Entered
02-26-2009 IFW TSS Processing by Tech Center Complete
11-07-2008 Application Dispatched from OIPE
10-16-2008 Sent to Classification Contractor
10-16-2008 Filing Receipt - Updated
10-07-2008 Additional Application Filing Fees
10-07-2008 35 USC 115, Oath of the Applicant
09-23-2008 Notice Mailed--Application Incomplete--Filing Date Assigned
09-23-2008 Filing Receipt
09-11-2008 Cleared by OIPE CSR
09-10-2008 IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review
09-10-2008 Initial Exam Team nn
******************************************
I encourage you to do your own DD and see what you can find - let me know what you find - here is public portal:
1. Go to this site and type in the security words shown HERE
2. Once your in, type in the "control number" 12208127
3. You may have to type in two security words again
4. Use the tabs above to look and find the references above mostly under "image file wrapper"
SkunK
Good Luck
PS. It appears POET has another patent related to this one, but it is not yet published. 12/877,987 filed on 09-08-2010 which is Pending claims the benefit of 12/208,127. Here is what you get when you look for 12/877,987:
"Sorry, the entered Application Number "12/877,987" is not available. The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an application that is not yet available for public inspection."
12 August 2009 POET request to change from utility application to provisional application
2 Sept 2009 POET withdraws application to provisional application
20 Sept 2010 POET revokes power of attorney from its patent attorney
20 Sept 2010 POET now assign Power of Attorney to Swiss Tanner.
PDF copy of POET Patent APPLICATION
PDF copy of POET Claims
***********************************************
Transaction History
Date Transaction Description
10-06-2010 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
09-27-2010 Mail-Petition Decision - Dismissed
09-27-2010 Petition Decision - Dismissed
09-27-2010 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
09-24-2010 Correspondence Address Change
08-03-2010 Petition Entered
06-16-2010 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
03-11-2010 PG-Pub Issue Notification
09-04-2009 Mail-Petition Decision - Dismissed
09-03-2009 Petition Decision - Dismissed
08-12-2009 Petition Entered
02-26-2009 IFW TSS Processing by Tech Center Complete
11-07-2008 Application Dispatched from OIPE
10-16-2008 Sent to Classification Contractor
10-16-2008 Filing Receipt - Updated
10-07-2008 Additional Application Filing Fees
10-07-2008 35 USC 115, Oath of the Applicant
09-23-2008 Notice Mailed--Application Incomplete--Filing Date Assigned
09-23-2008 Filing Receipt
09-11-2008 Cleared by OIPE CSR
09-10-2008 IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review
09-10-2008 Initial Exam Team nn
******************************************
I encourage you to do your own DD and see what you can find - let me know what you find - here is public portal:
1. Go to this site and type in the security words shown HERE
2. Once your in, type in the "control number" 12208127
3. You may have to type in two security words again
4. Use the tabs above to look and find the references above mostly under "image file wrapper"
SkunK
Good Luck
PS. It appears POET has another patent related to this one, but it is not yet published. 12/877,987 filed on 09-08-2010 which is Pending claims the benefit of 12/208,127. Here is what you get when you look for 12/877,987:
"Sorry, the entered Application Number "12/877,987" is not available. The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an application that is not yet available for public inspection."
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Poet Plans to compete in Corn Oil Extraction
[POET does NOT have a patent for COES. They have a patent application published March 11, 2010. More on their "application" starts and stops and tribulations later.]
Knowing that the "big three" in ethanol production are not going to sit on the sidelines and miss all the benefits of COES, it was just a question of whether ADM, Poet and Valero would be a GreenShift customer or competitor. It appears that question for POET has been answered in the FALL 2010 internal magazine "Vital". They claim a ". . . new patent-pending corn oil separation process to manufacture Voilá!™ corn oil. . ." With the new timeline released in the earlier blog, it will be interesting if POET becomes a litigant in the current proceedings. It appears GreenShift will decide that by the 24th of November.
See POET Newsletter Here
See on Poet website Here
See in American Fuels Blog
Since the Corn Oil extraction process has already been patented by GreenShift, it appears that Poet is counting on inventing a "unique" process using less heat and producing less free fatty acids. Flottweg already appears to have had problems getting around the GreenShift patents and patents pending. Flottweg story Here and Here and Here.
It appears that POET's patent pending for Corn Oil Extraction is Right HERE
SkunK found it interesting that they talk below of how they supposedly improved over GreenShift patent applications - but not patents? I provided the links below to the applications and also inserted the links to the issued patents.
[0003]Various processes for recovering oil from a fermentation product are currently known in the art. Such processes, however, can be expensive, inefficient or even dangerous. For example, some process, such as that set forth in WO 2008/039859, utilize a solvent extraction technique that, in turn, requires the use of volatile organic compounds such as hexane. Other processes, such as that set forth in U.S. Application Publication No. 2007/0238891 = [GreenShift Patent 7,68,729], utilize high amounts of heat. Still other conventional processes, such as that set forth in U.S. Application Publication No. 2006/0041152 [GreenShift Patent 7,601,858] and 2006/0041153 [GreenShift Notice of allowance], simply apply a centrifugal force to a fermented product in an attempt to separate an oil product.
{SkunK note: The patent office has to be asking Poet: "Do you really think we issued two patents to '. . , simply apply a centrifugal force to a fermented product in an attempt to separate an oil product' ????? You might want to review those patents again."}
[0004]Conventional processes for recovering oil from a fermentation product can sacrifice oil quality such that the oil contains a high level of free fatty acids. The presence of a high level of free fatty acids can hamper the production of end products such as, for example, the yield and quality of any bio-diesel eventually produced with the oil as a feedstock. Processes for producing ethanol, such as the process set forth in WO 2004/081193, produce fermentation byproducts which contain increased levels of oils while maintaining a low level of free fatty acids. However, upon application of a centrifugal force to the fermented product, an emulsion can form which effectively locks the valuable oil within the emulsion. Thus, a problem exists in that both conventional and novel processes, alike, cannot effectively, efficiently or safely separate or "break" quality oil from a fermented product.
SkunK
Knowing that the "big three" in ethanol production are not going to sit on the sidelines and miss all the benefits of COES, it was just a question of whether ADM, Poet and Valero would be a GreenShift customer or competitor. It appears that question for POET has been answered in the FALL 2010 internal magazine "Vital". They claim a ". . . new patent-pending corn oil separation process to manufacture Voilá!™ corn oil. . ." With the new timeline released in the earlier blog, it will be interesting if POET becomes a litigant in the current proceedings. It appears GreenShift will decide that by the 24th of November.
See POET Newsletter Here
See on Poet website Here
See in American Fuels Blog
Since the Corn Oil extraction process has already been patented by GreenShift, it appears that Poet is counting on inventing a "unique" process using less heat and producing less free fatty acids. Flottweg already appears to have had problems getting around the GreenShift patents and patents pending. Flottweg story Here and Here and Here.
It appears that POET's patent pending for Corn Oil Extraction is Right HERE
SkunK found it interesting that they talk below of how they supposedly improved over GreenShift patent applications - but not patents? I provided the links below to the applications and also inserted the links to the issued patents.
[0003]Various processes for recovering oil from a fermentation product are currently known in the art. Such processes, however, can be expensive, inefficient or even dangerous. For example, some process, such as that set forth in WO 2008/039859, utilize a solvent extraction technique that, in turn, requires the use of volatile organic compounds such as hexane. Other processes, such as that set forth in U.S. Application Publication No. 2007/0238891 = [GreenShift Patent 7,68,729], utilize high amounts of heat. Still other conventional processes, such as that set forth in U.S. Application Publication No. 2006/0041152 [GreenShift Patent 7,601,858] and 2006/0041153 [GreenShift Notice of allowance], simply apply a centrifugal force to a fermented product in an attempt to separate an oil product.
{SkunK note: The patent office has to be asking Poet: "Do you really think we issued two patents to '. . , simply apply a centrifugal force to a fermented product in an attempt to separate an oil product' ????? You might want to review those patents again."}
[0004]Conventional processes for recovering oil from a fermentation product can sacrifice oil quality such that the oil contains a high level of free fatty acids. The presence of a high level of free fatty acids can hamper the production of end products such as, for example, the yield and quality of any bio-diesel eventually produced with the oil as a feedstock. Processes for producing ethanol, such as the process set forth in WO 2004/081193, produce fermentation byproducts which contain increased levels of oils while maintaining a low level of free fatty acids. However, upon application of a centrifugal force to the fermented product, an emulsion can form which effectively locks the valuable oil within the emulsion. Thus, a problem exists in that both conventional and novel processes, alike, cannot effectively, efficiently or safely separate or "break" quality oil from a fermented product.
SkunK
Friday, November 5, 2010
SCHEDULE IS OUT!!
See all Here
SOME of the deadlines below. Note we will know any additional litigants and preliminary injunctions in a few weeks!
November 15, 2010, plaintiff amendments to their existing complaints due.
November 15, 2010, CleanTech additional motions for preliminary injunction due.
November 24, 2010, additional cases for infringement due
November 30, 2010. Answers to all complaints due
December 10, 2010, Replies to any counterclaims due.
December 23, 2010, Parties shall serve Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures
December 23, 2010, GERS Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions
January 24, 2011, Defendants Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
////////////////////
Markman hearing will be held on April 25, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 361. A preliminary injunction hearing will be held on June 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 361.
SkunK
You might want to download this PDF so you have it handy. Its the roadmap for our journey. Sounds like the "Markman" hearing is a big deal and of course if we haven't settled by June - a preliminary injunction decision will also be big. By then the writting may be on the wall, or a settlement made.
"Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole.".
SOME of the deadlines below. Note we will know any additional litigants and preliminary injunctions in a few weeks!
November 15, 2010, plaintiff amendments to their existing complaints due.
November 15, 2010, CleanTech additional motions for preliminary injunction due.
November 24, 2010, additional cases for infringement due
November 30, 2010. Answers to all complaints due
December 10, 2010, Replies to any counterclaims due.
December 23, 2010, Parties shall serve Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures
December 23, 2010, GERS Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions
January 24, 2011, Defendants Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
////////////////////
Markman hearing will be held on April 25, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 361. A preliminary injunction hearing will be held on June 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 361.
SkunK
You might want to download this PDF so you have it handy. Its the roadmap for our journey. Sounds like the "Markman" hearing is a big deal and of course if we haven't settled by June - a preliminary injunction decision will also be big. By then the writting may be on the wall, or a settlement made.
"Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole.".
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Update on 3 GreenShift COES Litigants
Frontline Bioenergy to suspend operations; continues to seek finance. Management of the company’s assets including its technology and intellectual property will revert to its primary investor and shareholder, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company (CVEC).
SEE Here
*********************
Lincolnway will ride out the high corn prices. Hold off on the ethanol obit
See Here
*********************
Fire Breaks Out at Bushmills Ethanol Plant in Atwater
See Here
*********************
SkunK
SEE Here
*********************
Lincolnway will ride out the high corn prices. Hold off on the ethanol obit
See Here
*********************
Fire Breaks Out at Bushmills Ethanol Plant in Atwater
See Here
*********************
SkunK
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tsunami: Top 10 Impacts for biofuels from US Elections
It looks like the SkunK poll to the right was an early predictor of the actual results. Whatever your political preference we can all come together and celebrate the end of political commercials - at least for the next few months.
How is the election results going to affect Ethanol and Biodiesel? Here is a good round up from Biofuels Digest.
SkunK
How is the election results going to affect Ethanol and Biodiesel? Here is a good round up from Biofuels Digest.
SkunK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
