GreenShift Answers

You read what the SkunK thought about the majority defendants' response to GreenShift's recent filing.  Now GreenShift answers.  Here are some SkunK selected excerpts of the NEW GreenShift Response to the majority filing.  You are invited to use the links below to read the entire filings.

"Contrary to Defendants’ vitriol and assertions of bad faith, Plaintiffs’ proposed continuance reflects a common sense and practical plan to construe related patents together rather than in a wasteful, duplicative, piecemeal approach.

Defendants’ hyperbole is unhelpful and unfortunate.  Defendants know full well that CleanTech had to submit various types of references to the USPTO to comply with its Rule 56 duty of candor. 37 CFR § 1.56. Defendants themselves sent certain patent references, including arguments relating to Prevost, to CleanTech’s counsel who then had to submit these references for consideration by the USPTO. According to USPTO rules, litigation material, such as invalidity contentions, must also be submitted for consideration.

In order for newly submitted art to be considered, the USPTO rules and regulations required CleanTech to withdraw the application from issue and place the application back into examination.

Here, Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiffs to delay issuance. Defendants engaged in heads-I-win, tails-you-lose conduct. Either the USPTO would invalidate an allowed claim based on the newly submitted art, or, at the very least, the date the patent would issue would be further delayed, thereby eating away at the effective term of the patent. On the other hand, if Plaintiffs failed to disclose the information to the USPTO, Defendants had a manufactured inequitable conduct claim. Defendants win either way."
See GERS Reply to Majority Here
********************************
Here are some excerpts to the Reply to Iroquois:

Iroquois’ arguments are both incorrect and misplaced. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected the very arguments Iroquois now makes.

Iroquois is not only wrong on the law, it misconstrues Plaintiffs’ position. CleanTech respectfully submits it is more efficient, and more likely to ensure consistent claim interpretation, if claims dealing with similar subject matter are construed at the same time.
See GERS  Reply to Iroquois
******************************
Happy Reading,
SkunK

ps Bonus link Here