GreenShift Receives New Corn Oil Extraction Patent

Impact of New Patent Allowance

Presumed Valid
The U.S. Patent Act provides that a “patent shall be presumed valid.” [Removing all potential outcomes from the debate, it seems it would be extremely difficult for alleged infringers to argue that they are acting in a way that presumes GreenShift's four patents are valid.]


Defendant’s Burden
Alleged infringers have the burden of establishing invalidity. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the long-standing principal of U.S. patent law that an alleged infringer can only overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating invalidity with “clear and convincing evidence.”  The USPTO has considered all of the defendants’ alleged prior art materials and invalidity arguments and, by allowing the ‘231 Patent Application, the USPTO has determined that the defendants’ materials and arguments are insufficient to establish invalidity.   [In order for the court to find GreenShift's multiple patents invalid, they would now have to take the same information provided to multiple patent officials (who are experts in this field - while judges are experts in the law) and form a different conclusion.  Declaring a patent invalid based on information not available to the patent official is one thing, but to do it based on the same information is quite another.]

Damages are Accruing
GreenShift is entitled to, at a minimum, reasonable royalties for all historical recovery of corn oil. Those that have infringed or plan to infringe on GreenShift’s patents are creating ever-increasing risk for their investors and employees.   [This is the first time I have seen GreenShift acknowledge the threat to Ethanol Plant Employees that extended infringement brings.  When business add significant cash flow through the willful infringement of numerous valid patents, the future of that business is NOT secure.  Anyone who induces and promotes infringement through promises of indemnification is in my opinion irresponsible, dangerous to those who buy into it and will eventually be disruptive to the Ethanol Fleet when the bill comes due - that no one can pay.    This disruption - i.e. closed doors, is the threat to employees that I believe GreenShift is referring to. The risk to stakeholders is much more obvious.]  [ps  How many bets for a "million dollars" did you make in grade school while playing on the Monkey Bars?  If you won I suspect you settled, at best, for a friend's chocolate milk during lunch.  Has anyone who is relying on indemnification actually done the math and figured up the potential costs to yourselves and others, added it to the potential personal and corporate costs of those who promised to indemnify?  And then looked at their ability to pay?  Are you prepared to settle for a Chocolate Milk on that xxx million dollar gamble??]

Obvious Consequences
GreenShift will vigorously protect the competitive advantage of its licensees, and will seek the maximum allowable damages against those that infringe and any party that contributes to infringement, including treble damages for willful infringement.   (Based on a 20% royalty fee, triple damages start at 60% of all corn oil produced over the period of infrigement)

Personal Liability
GreenShift will also pursue appropriate claims of personal liability for those decision makers that induce the direct infringement of GreenShift's patents.   [This quote explains the special circumstances of piercing the corporate veil in a patent case:  "In contrast, a person charged with inducing patent infringement or contributing to the patent infringement of another cannot hide behind a corporate structure. The principals and employees of a company can be personally liable for inducement of infringement by knowingly and intentionally inducing another to infringe a patent. Similarly, the principals and employees of a company can be personally liable for contributory infringement by knowingly selling components for a patented invention that have no non-infringing uses. A patent owner does not have to pierce the corporate veil to charge a company principal or employee of inducement of infringement or contributory infringement. The patent owner, however, will have to prove that there was infringement, and that the person charged participated in the wrong-doing." Sourced here]

Do Your Due Diligence
GreenShift now has four patents issued and allowed with many more pending that broadly cover concentration and recovery of corn oil from whole stillage and/or its derivatives.

SEE HERE
SkunK

Everything in blue today is SkunK's opinion.  Your's is welcome in the comment section.