Latest ICM Attempts to Circumvent GreenShift’s Patented Extraction Processes Fail to Avoid Infringement
Earlier this year, ICM announced the filing of its own patent application for its so-called advanced oil system, a process which ICM alleges “does not separate oil directly from concentrated thin stillage” and therefore does not infringe GreenShift’s patents.
“ICM’s attempt to design around GreenShift’s corn oil extraction patents continues to include concentration and recovery of oil from thin stillage with a centrifuge – a process that is covered by our issued patents,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s Chief Executive Officer.
The following is a current list of the defendants in GreenShift's pending infringement action:
David Vander Griend, personally
ICM, Inc.
GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc. (f/k/a GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc.)
Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc.
ACE Ethanol, LLC
Adkins Energy, LLC
Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC
Amaizing Energy, LLC
Big River Resources Galva, LLC
Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC
Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC
Bushmills Ethanol, Inc.
Cardinal Ethanol, LLC
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., LLLP
Heartland Corn Products, LLC
Iroquois BioEnergy Company, LLC
Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC
Lincolnway Energy, LLC
United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC
SEE ALL HERE
SkunK
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
55 comments:
It sounds like ICM's "so-called advanced oil system" is just a centrifuge that injects an acid into the emulsion created by the water and oil in the concentrated stillage. If this is all they got, they'll have a really tough time getting a patent issued. Simply because this is obvious and has been known for a long time. There's tons of prior art out there for breaking an emulsion with an acid.
There's no hope for getting around extraction from stillage. POET is doing the same thing, using our methods. POET doesn't use heat when they make ethanol but that doesn't change the fact they're still extracting from the concentrated stillage.
Patent application---denied---again!
Agreed.. The Icm system is yet another ploy all over again. Both Icm and Poet are still seperating from stillage.. They might as well put money to the side..when the sh#t hits the fan..the damages will make news..
Again, would anyone lend me $10,000 to buy GERS stock at $0.0001?
Anybody wanna bet me $10,000 the skirt the patents application is laughed all the way out the patent office? Nobody?
"skirt" is a nice analogy.
As in a two year old with a thumb in his mouth and the other hand cluthing his mother's skirt.
only coming out to swat the neighbor kid then running back to the protection of his mother's skirt.
Now ICM's attempt to "skirt" the greenshift patents can be visualized.
lmao
this intelectual discourse is nice....share price will plummit post R/S....that is what matters to investors like me....it is so so sorry...a huge abortion
How did we go from "skirt" to "abortion". Just give it time and time will tell all.
Look if a penney stock has you all in a tither going form .0001 to .0001, lets face it you are not cut out for high stakes, high risk penney stocks.
Go buy some blue stocks like GM so you can sleep at night. oophs they, unlike Greenshift, went tits up recently. OK, so go buy some CD's and get your 1% return. Banks never go belly up. oophs. . .
Ahhhhhhhh, never mind stay here and whine.
That last trade of 5,012,500 was me. I also picked up another 125 shares of GPRE today at $9.98. They just got upgraded to a buy! That's the first time I've purchased GPRE since my original investment at $7. I'm still sitting on tons of dry powder. If the ask of $.0001 keeps drying up, I'll take the rest out myself.
Good Luck To All.
Careful Slash...Its been well known about using a centrifuge to remove oil from water as well. Acid splitting can help but its all the same operation.
Thank God the concentration and then extraction of said water is what's patented.
To say that the Greenshift patents are just spinning stuff to get the oil out is a silly over simplification.
Is the M1-A1 Abrams just a tank? They had tanks in WWI.
Is the Aircraft carrier USS Abe Lincoln just a boat? They had boats thousands of years ago.
Give the patent office some love. They do this for a living. Multiple patents issued by multiple examiners shows this system is not just a milk/cream separator converted to stilage.
Patents are assume valid not the other way around.
Why do you think Vander Greind is trying so hard to get himself personally out this mess??? Paying his lawyers to get the charges dropped against himself while leaving his customers to face the music??? He knows his patent infringing scam will only last a little longer.
Center Ethanol Enzyme Study
Center was the first to settle the patent dispute. The head of Center is on the BOD of GPRE. When ethanol producers license the legal way, they focus more energy on projects that matter like this enzyme study and GPRE's algae. Much smarter than fighting a losing battle against issued patents.
"Scientists from the United States Department of Agriculture used a commercial enzyme to reduce overall costs and greenhouse gases emissions of ethanol production from grain.
The researchers found that the enzyme helps extract the water from ethanol byproducts that are used in animal feeds - called dried distillers grains with solubles - for cattle, swine and poultry. This could significantly reduce the amount of energy and water needed for ethanol production from grain as well as its byproducts.
The study was conducted at an Illinois-based commercial facility Center Ethanol Company that produces 54 million gallons of ethanol and 172,000 tons of D.D.G.S. from corn each year.
The enzymes were provided by Genecor, a major developer and manufacturer of industrial enzymes. Genecor is now part of the DuPont Industrial Biosciences. The researchers added a pound of the enzyme to every 1,000 pounds of corn.
After corn grains had been fermented into ethanol, the leftover slurry of corn solids and water called "stillage" was put into a centrifuge where much of the water was extracted. The stillage was transferred to an evaporator then to a dryer powered by natural gas for another evaporation process.
The scientists found out the amount of energy needed by the dryer to make the stillage suitable for D.D.G.S. production was reduced by 14 percent because the enzymes boosted the water extraction process in the centrifuge.
All in all, the researchers estimate that using the enzymes would reduce facility water use by 10 percent, electricity consumption by 2.4 percent and natural gas consumption by 12 percent.
A model using this data indicated that this would result in a reduction of GHG emissions of around 8,000 tons annually from a mid-sized ethanol facility with an annual production of 50 million gallons of grain ethanol.
"The production of grain ethanol is a key component in our nations efforts to increase the supply of transportation fuels derived from renewable plant resources. The results from this investigation give us new tools for increasing the efficiency of grain ethanol production and for protecting our natural resource base," Agricultural Research Service administrator Edward B. Knipling said. "
http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/16876/enzyme-reduces-costs-and-energy-use-grain-ethanol-production
"After corn grains had been fermented into ethanol, the leftover slurry of corn solids and water called "stillage" was put into a centrifuge where much of the water was extracted. The stillage was transferred to an evaporator then to a dryer powered by natural gas for another evaporation process."
My response from Valero to my question about whether Valero was concerned about getting involved in the legal entanglements of ICM/GERS. In summary they are not:
> From: "Gillingham, Jim"
> Date: September 20, 2011 3:56:46 PM EDT
> > Subject: RE: Corn Oil System
>
>
>
> ICM and Greenshift are involved in patent litigation stemming from an earlier form of corn oil extraction technology. Valero is not a party in that litigation.
>
>
> The ICM AOS process which we are licensing is a new technology with a pending patent which is different from the older technology and is not the subject of the ICM/Greenshift litigation.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim
Good Digging Nobody.
Valaro's position is in direct conflict with GERS PR yesterday:
“ICM’s attempt to design around GreenShift’s corn oil extraction patents continues to include concentration and recovery of oil from thin stillage with a centrifuge – a process that is covered by our issued patents,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s Chief Executive Officer.
More to the point:
"we will continue to do so here by prosecuting ICM and any producer concentrating and recovering corn oil from stillage without license from GreenShift.”
This is direct promise to file on VALERO.
A patent pending is nothing. In fact it hasn'e even been published yet. It has no standing and offers the licensee NO protection. Anyone can FILE a patent and get patent pending status. How much scrutiny will it take at the patent office before it is rejected?? That is the question.
I need a little help here. Didn't GERS supply information on the ICM AOS process to the USPTO during its request for re certification of it patents? And didn't the USPTO re certify the patents with full knowledge of the ICM claims? If so, what is the mystery here, why would Valero take this position, they have good attorneys too? Perhaps the implications of the re certification are not widely known?
If so, what is the mystery here, why would Valero take this position, they have good attorneys too?
The good executives bring in the lawyers BEFORE they make a decision. All too common is they bring them in later and say this is what we are doing/did so your job is to protect us from liability.
I got a feeling this Valero deal was made BEFORE the lawyers were brought in the room. ICM sold it on the fact that they have a prior relationship.
Even at the highest levels decisions are still made contray to good lawyering.
Can you say "Solyndra"?
I bet the White House lawyers where not brought in until AFTER that deal was done too and the trouble began.
I also bet the Valero Lawyers are reading this and mumbling "damn straight"
Things are looking up today. Today's high is .0001 I think I should create my own blog too and call it Stinker.
Kim on I-Hub found the incestuous link between Valero and ICM:
http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x519300971/AgStar-ethanol-ICM-in
Anonymous said...
If so, what is the mystery here, why would Valero take this position, they have good attorneys too?
If Valero has not licensed the ICM equipment with GreenShift then that is what I wonder about too.
Why would Valero at this point in time decide to run equipment that infringes on GreenShift's 4 Patents?
Are they ignorant, stupid, or take a gamble that their patents will be invalidated?
Why doesn't gers just start selling ICM's equipment undercut them and give them the finger for a license agreement? Turn the tables sorta speak?
From Valero's letter to Nobody,
>" The ICM AOS process which we are licensing is a new technology with a pending patent which is different from the older technology and is not the subject of the ICM/Greenshift litigation. "
This conflicts with Krieslers statement in the GERS PR.
Earlier this year, ICM announced the filing of its own patent application for its so-called advanced oil system, a process which ICM alleges “does not separate oil directly from concentrated thin stillage” and therefore does not infringe GreenShift’s patents.
“ICM’s attempt to design around GreenShift’s corn oil extraction patents continues to include concentration and recovery of oil from thin stillage with a centrifuge – a process that is covered by our issued patents,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s Chief Executive Officer.
Does the second paragraph refer to the first? It reads like that and if so is Kreisler saying the AOS is without GreenShifts licensing an infringing system?
So looks like ICM has lured another producer into infringement. These ICM guys are like sneaky bastards who won't give up! Lol. I hope the court shuts em down.
Unless news is released stating Valero will use ICM equipment licensed by GreenShift then,
If Valero has not licensed the ICM systems with GreenShift I think it gives the court all the more reason to issue a preliminary injunction.
IMO!
As ICM selling another producer an unlicensed GERS system will cause GreenShift much irreparable harm one of the 4 factors for issuing a preliminary injunction.
The AOS comes after the centrifuge which extracts from stillage which is patented by GreenShift. It cannot be effected without the extraction from the centrifuge which is patented by GreenShift, the method not the equipment that is because the extraction can be done with any suitable mechanical device such as ICM's Tricanter. Because the AOS cannot operate without it's precursor the centrifuge or any such mechanical device to extract from stillage, which then goes to the AOS, Extraction from stillage by way of centrifuge is necessary for the AOS to function. Therefore to function the AOS needs extraction from a centrifuge which is patented by GreenShift. Therefore to operate legally Valero must announce their ICM systems are licensed by GreenShift.
Kreisler said,
“ICM’s attempt to design around GreenShift’s corn oil extraction patents continues to include concentration and recovery of oil from thin stillage with a centrifuge – a process that is covered by our issued patents,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s Chief Executive Officer.
This why after Valero's announcement I thought there was a missing piece of info coming in a latter announcement revealing the precursor system, the extracting centrifuge, its makers and the licensing of it with GreenShift. Their AOS seems to be a secondary add on system that is not functional without the first, which is patented. These would be ICM's Tricanter Oil Separation System and GreenShifts COES. The ICM systems are infringing if not licensed by GreenShift.
Is it possible the announcement will come revealing Valero has licensed the initial COES part, the centrifuge that extracts from stillage part with GreenShift, but are still in debate over the AOS part?
Ah! So if the AOS is not a complete functional system without the centrifuge that extracts from stillage, which is patented by GreenShift. Then it is infringing!
How could Valero have missed that?
Or are they trying to market a secondary after extraction add on that further increases yield, flaming their AOS is not patented. So if the 1st part is licensed and the second was not then they would have to know how much Corn Oil was yielded from the 1st before the AOS yielded more and pay GERS the royalty from the 1st amount extracted before the 2nd AOS part. Maybe Kreisler means the whole thing is patented.
Valero still has until they turn the switch on to the ICM system to negotiate a license agreement with GreenShift. My guess is since it will take until after the first of the year to startup, they are patiently awaiting the results of the Markman hearing.
There is a lot of hoping going on around here that is not supported by the facts. It is clear that ICM and Valero have a long history of working together and that GERS has been a thorn in ICM's side for a long time. ICM is now hiding behind the skirts of the 11 billion dollar cap company Valero and Valero is begging GERS to take on his little buddy ICM on this issue. It is also clear that KK has taken the bait as the trap was set and it has now sprung -- leading to GERS coming up against Valero’s large resources. This is not going to be pretty; in my opinion this is part of an overall strategy to put the "thorn" out of business by getting GERS to commit to increasingly expensive litigation extended over many years at a total cost that will lead to GERS financial demise or massive dilution post R/S. Do you really think the timing of the ICM/Valero announcement so close to the date of the R/S was a coincidence? Either of these outcomes is a disaster for the common stockholder. I am afraid that if this is the grand plan that Goliath will triumph and David will be vanquished and the common stockholders (the stone) will have been hurled in vain. The only hope I see is for a temporary injunction against Valero/ICM – SOON! What is the likelihood of GERS obtaining and sustaining such an order? Others will weigh in on that outcome, that if occurs might become a miracle of its own kind.
I would think that this is a blunder by Valero/icm. This gives greeshifts lawyers fuel to say, look they continue to sign on new companies causing further harm to our client. Therefore greenshift must have a temporary injunction now due to icms agressive behavior so that further irrepitable harm is not caused. To me, Valero is burning icm by releasing this news now, as this will give credence for bringing in greenshifts updated patent. I think this pr by valero might be a nail in the coffin for icms case.
For the knowledgeable legal beagles that might read this blog: What is the timing of a motion for the temporary injunction considering that the Markman Hearing is under consideration by the judge? Does GERS have to wait until his deliberations on this hearing have been completed?
For the knowledgeable "GERSites" that frequent this blog: Did GERS submit the "new" ICM AOS technology to the USPTO as part of the data the USPTO considered during its re certification of the GERS patent? If that is correct, could the fact that the USPTO re certified in the face of this information be a telling component in the motion for the injunction? Alternatively, is this ICM AOS technology truly new and never considered by the USPTO during its consideration of GERS patents?
It is included with the documents they sent to the patent office prior to the new patent. It looks like they included a schematic from ICM according to the files on the patent site.
Vineyardstock may be on to something important....The courts may in deed view this as proof of further encrochment on GERS legal patented process....Of course, my concern remains consistent...Will share price be able to survive R/S or just plummit again...I am sick of avering down,,,
best,larry
Anony's recent post:
"It is included with the documents they sent to the patent office prior to the new patent. It looks like they included a schematic from ICM according to the files on the patent site."
I will take that answer as correct, the response sounds very authoritative. My response from Valero about the possibility of the ICM technology being a violation of GERS' patents clearly stated that Valero was not concerned about this possibility. This statement was made in writing, not by a Valero PR person but by Jim Gillingham Sr. VP Alternative Energy and Development. I doubt that Mr. Gillingham is unaware of the facts contained in Anony's response above. This strengthens my concern that the Valero/ICM ploy is operating on the assumption that they can weather the long litigation trail and GERS cannot. Essentially Valero is telling USPTO that they do not know their business, something, I am told that the courts are loath to accept. If this model is correct, they must be very convinced that a temporary injunction is not likely to happen to have embarked on this strategy.
I too am tired of averaging down. It makes me feel I paid too much for my earlier shares, that I've lost too much value from my earlier shares and others buy the same as me or more for much less.
Oh well, that's life!
Skribe,
Sounds like you too are now becoming convinced that significant post R/S dilution will be required to pay the expanded litigation that KK has described. My estimate is that about 80 million shares at a nickel will be required. That will run the O/S count from 14 million to about 94 million with the resultant PPS equivalent at that time about 10% of what it is today. If I am right we will have to do a lot of buying to average down meaningfully. Don't forget there will be a significant lag from the time GERSD shares are for sale (the date of the R/S) until our new shares have been delivered into our accounts by the transfer agent. This means two things; we can only watch as the new (GERSD) shares fall in value due the necessary dilution, and when the new shares are delivered there will likely be additional significant selling as this will be the first time in months that dissatisfied people will be able to get out. I may be corrected here and I hope that I am, but I see an injunction soon as the only way to prevent this scenario.
"this will be the first time in months that dissatisfied people will be able to get out"
Hey people, are you really so as described above?
Can't hit the sell button?
I will bet 1.000.000 $ right now you can sell as much of your stock at 0 $ as you might need.
Oww wait nobody tells that you will wait until -0 $
LMAO
Sounds like very logical
I am interested to see how many people do not know how "Trial Lawyers" operate. They represent a client for no cost with the supposition they will win and then take a large commission cut of the pie after winning in the end as payment. Do you really think GERS is paying the patent lawyers to take this case on? I suggest they are looking to the big payout at the end as well. If that is not the case, the trial lawyers would have dropped GERS a long time ago.
Good, I though nobody was paying attention. Notice the last sentence taken out of the last shareholder letter. GreenShift lawyers are working on a contingency. They have looked it over and bought in and fully expect to win. So do I.
Litigation Partner
We partnered with a leading intellectual property law firm, Cantor Colburn, LLP, to enforce our corn oil extraction patent against accused infringers to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees. Cantor Colburn has been an invaluable partner and we are very pleased to have such a high caliber team behind us on terms that align their interests with our success.
According to the intellectual property attorney I have been talking to it is very unusual for the attorney to take such cases on contingency UNLESS they believe it is a "slam dunk" outcome because they get a large percentage of the settlement this way. Therefore, the above poster is correct in ascribing significance to the contingency acceptance by the law firm IF that is what has occurred. The above statement from the shareholder letter could be interpreted as indicating a contingency relationship but other interpretations are also possible as well.
The determination of whether this is a contingency arrangement is very important to the investors. I have had only a little success seeking clarifications from GERS over the years. Others such as the Skunk have had more sucess. I wonder if they might seek clarification of this important issue?
If the case for GERS is truly being litigated on contingency, then where has all the money gone?
Why 2 yrs for the equipment to pay for itself?
Perhaps a GreenShift method 1 centrifuge system or a ICM Tricanter system to extract pre AOS. Each alone states ROI in 1 yr, so 2 systems would be 2 yrs. Make sence?
So either there is a delay in releasing the info on who will provide the base system, i.e GreenShift Method 1 and licensing by GreenShift. Or the PR is finite and Valero is not letting us know they are using ICM's Tricanter System without a license. But 2 yrs., sounds like 2 systems. The PR uses the term equipment 3 times, so hopefully Valero has done the right thing, followed patent law and will announce licensing their equipment whether all ICM or a combo with GreenShift equipment.
If there is no announcement then I assume they have gone the shady way and used both ICM systems without a GreenShift license. 2 systems 2 yrs, Tricanter and AOS.
I'm hoping it's GreenShift equip and licensing followed by their already chosen and revealed ICM AOS.
Skribe,
A senior VP at Valero has stated in writing that it is ICM only. It is time to deal with that reality and the resulting financial, litigation, and image consequences for GERS, and other questions that are not answered. IF the litigation has been taken on contingency then where indeed has all the revenue gone that did not manifest itself as income? Is GERS going to pursue a preliminary injunction that if given and sustained would be one of the few actions that could save the common stockholders near term? It is my understanding that this injunction cannot be sought until after the release of the Markman findings and then only if they are "positive". Thus another question to ponder, the Markman findings? Skribe, we have enough real questions facing us; your hypotheticals about ICM are not among them.
Strong Growth In Inedible Corn Oil
Federal and state incentive programs coupled with the Renewable Fuels Standard are providing a floor for the future foundation of the biodiesel industry, a trade organization and producers believe.
This year, the National Biodiesel Board is projecting 800 million gallons and sees industry meeting the required one billion gallons for 2012, even without a blender's credit. But the credit is preferable, it says.
Why will there be no repeat of 2010 doldrums for biodiesel without the credit? Simple—RFS 2 is requiring blending of one billion gallons of biomass-based diesel next year, or about 1.5% of the 60 billion gallons of petroleum-based diesel fuel used in the United States annually.
And it ratchets up to 1.280 billion gallons in 2013. Plus, the industry has the capacity to meet the mandated blending amount required, NBB said.
"Clearly the industry is prepared to meet and/or exceed a billion gallons," said Larry Schafer, NBB senior adviser.
Schafer cited several factors that need to be considered when projecting industry production next year, including the over-the-road ASTM specifications allowing at least 5% biodiesel to be blended with petroleum across the nation with no engine modification, nor notification required to end-users. In addition there are several states with incentives programs for biodiesel including Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oregon. Also, heating oil can be blended with biodiesel, another potential market for the fuel.
In June, the EPA released proposed volume requirements for biodiesel, considered an advanced biofuel like cellulosic ethanol. One of the reasons EPA is not shy about expanding advanced biofuel requirements is biodiesel, REG said, even with a lack of large-scale cellulosic ethanol production in the U.S.
The RFS2 allows obligated parties to either blend biodiesel as an advanced biofuel, or purchase the equivalent Renewable Identification Number, which is valued at 1.5 per gallon, unlike starch-based ethanol, valued at 1 for 1.
"Biodiesel is positioned to be the major renewable fuel to satisfy the 2011 advanced biodiesel obligation and well-placed to meet 2012's two billion RIN obligation for Advanced Biofuel," REG said in a white paper this month.
A final factor to consider is the diversification of feedstocks now being used to produce the fuel. In the startup of the industry, facilities used primarily virgin soybean oil to produce biodiesel, REG said.
REG noted that roughly 50% of the fuel is produced from soybean oil, while the rest utilizes such feedstocks as animal fats, other vegetable oils, used cooking oil, and inedible corn oil, sometimes extracted from distillers grains produced at ethanol plants.
"REG has focused on feedstock diversification and our confidence is in the strong growth of emerging feedstocks like inedible corn oil," REG said.
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&product=/ag/news/renewablefuels/news&vendorReference=0702BACF&paneContentId=35&paneParentId=0
"Skribe,
A senior VP at Valero has stated in writing that it is ICM only. "
I have read Valero's PR and read your letters from Valero. And it states they are going with the ICM AOS Advanced Oil System. Which does not infringe because it does not directly extract from stillage.
It extracts from the stream that has been directly extracted by a centrifuge, like for example ICM's tricanter or a GreenShift centrifuge. Which are the subject of the current litigation case.
The AOS cannot indirectly extract from nothing it needs the stream from the centrifuge.
I read what Valero stated and that's reality they said they will use the ICM AOS.
In order to use the AOS they must also use a centrifuge to extract directly, which feeds the AOS, which then indirectly further separates oil from the emulsion.
I'm saying the info on who's centrifuges they will use and is not yet disclosed. They did not say they will be using ICM's Tricanter. They said only ICM's AOS and that's reality.
"Skribe,
A senior VP at Valero has stated in writing that it is ICM only. "
I have read Valero's PR and read your letters from Valero. And it states they are going with the ICM AOS Advanced Oil System. Which does not infringe because it does not directly extract from stillage.
It extracts from the stream that has been directly extracted by a centrifuge, like for example ICM's tricanter or a GreenShift centrifuge. Which are the subject of the current litigation case.
The AOS cannot indirectly extract from nothing it needs the stream from the centrifuge.
I read what Valero stated and that's reality they said they will use the ICM AOS.
In order to use the AOS they must also use a centrifuge to extract directly, which feeds the AOS, which then indirectly further separates oil from the emulsion.
I'm saying the info on who's centrifuges they will use and is not yet disclosed. They did not say they will be using ICM's Tricanter. They said only ICM's AOS and that's reality.
Also the AOS separates post pretreatment as opposed to GreenShift's method 2 applied as a pretreatment step.
If you think Valero's PR and letter stating they will use ICM's AOS and equipment is finite then you are only assuming they are using ICM's infringing Tricanter system to extract directly before the AOS treatment.
It's fact they only state they will use the non infringing AOS. They do not state which Centrifuge system they will use to directly extract to feed the AOS.
That's why KK states "continues to include"
Because to run the AOS you still need extract from a centrifuge < the unnamed equipment in the Valero PR.
“ICM’s attempt to design around GreenShift’s corn oil extraction patents continues to include concentration and recovery of oil from thin stillage with a centrifuge – a process that is covered by our issued patents,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s Chief Executive Officer.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GreenShift-Files-Motion-to-bw-4065713789.html?x=0&.v=1
Post a Comment