Monday, August 15, 2011

The Simple Case for Infringment

I am not a lot of things, and I certainly ain't no lawyer.  Since we have some new faces around let me put out a simple case for infringement.  Perhaps simple evidence will not impress all the esquires out there.  But if this goes to trial, jurors have a long history of being impressed with evidence.

1.  Dave Winsness entire Statement Here
Trouble reading segment click here

Well if this Dave Winsness statement is true it certainly does sound like a clear case of infringement.  You sign an agreement not to disclose a patent pending technology so that you can have access to that technology.  You sign an agreement not to disclose that same patent pending technology to anyone else.  You then purchase two of the inventions and gain access to the patent pending technologies and soon afterwards you begin to sell unauthorized corn oil extraction systems to ethanol manufacturers. 

Hmmmm, it seems ICM would have to dis-prove a portion of this Winsness statement in order to sway a jury that this is not a clear case of infringement.  In the SkunK's opinion the central point is "Did ICM purchase two of the patent pending inventions from the inventors?  If that is true, then we can by definition deduct that the inventors ". . , disclosed the extraction technology to a company called ICM, inc." After all how can one hand over the invention without disclosing the technology? 

We can also assume with great probability that ICM signed a non-closure agreement before they received any patent pending technology - certainly a common event - one that precludes nearly any transfer of technology, and certainly if the disclosure is patent pending.  Importantly I have not seen where ICM denies having signed a non-disclosure agreement.  (In any case, even if one were to assume they did not sign a non-disclosure agreement, that still does not allow them to infringe a patent.)

The final point is whether ICM sells ". . . corn oil extraction systems to ethanol manufacturers."  That statement is certainly self evident if you visit the ICM web site  or look at their ads.  Although tricanter sales seem to have stalled lately, it is not for lack of trying.

So in the SkunK's opinion, if one can prove that ICM purchased the two units from the inventors, then the other three points in this central Winsness statement can basically stand on their own.

How could the SkunK prove such a thing.  Well lets start by listening to what ICM said before all this started.  After all, if ICM admits to buying the units as Dave Winsness states, it would be hard for them to deny it now.  All we have to go back to June of 2005 when the sale of these two COES were announced:

"ICM Inc. is installing centrifuge technology provided by Vortex Dehydration Systems LLC in two of ICM's 40-mmgy plants, according to ICM Director of Plant Services Cheri Loest. She said the skid-unit technology intercepts the thin stillage stream before it enters the evaporator and removes corn oil. General Manager Dave Kramer told EPM he intends to implement the Vortex centrifuge in Sterling Ethanol, a 40-mmgy Colorado ethanol plant that recently broke ground." p 31 Ethanol Producer Magazine June 2005 SEE HERE

If you are familiar with the history of the inventors you know that:

"Prior to joining GreenShift, Mr. Winsness served as chief technology officer and eventually chief executive officer of Vortex Dehydration Technology. . . " SEE HERE


Now the SkunK has been around the block and realizes this case may revolve more around who's high school physics handbook we derive the definition of "heat" from, rather than this simple SkunK evidence.  I can just see the patent lawyers saying  "What the heck does ICM buying  a couple COES in 2005 from the inventors have to do with this patent case?   Just the same, if this goes to a jury - jurors will be impressed with this red-handed evidence..
Free Blog CounterTamron