The SkunK sees 3.7 win for GreenShift out of a possible 4.
The Court agrees with Defendants that the claim language itself suggests that the Concentrate Terms refer to the substance that results from the concentration or evaporation process.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, this construction does not foreclose the possibility that Plaintiff’s claimed invention can be practiced continuously.
Court interprets the Concentrate Terms as meaning “syrup containing water, oil, and solids resulting from the concentrating or evaporating process.”
**********************
Therefore, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that “mechanically processing” means “to subject to a mechanical device (or devices) to effect a particular result.”
**********************
Therefore, the Court construes the language in claims 1, 10 and 16 as: “the Concentrate Term (as construed by the Court in this Order) subjected to heat and a mechanical device (or devices) to extract a product that is substantially oil from the Concentrate Term (as construed by the Court in this Order).”
**********************
Accordingly, the Court concludes that “centrifuging the concentrate to recover oil” means: “processing the concentrate (as defined by the Court in this Order) with a centrifuge to separate the oil from the concentrate so that the oil stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially oil and the remaining concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil.”
*****************I am on the road and so I am using Ollie77's link off his I-Hub post. Thanks Ollie77. Consensus seems to be it looks good. Will write some thoughts soon.
SkunK
Posts
4 comments:
Is this language inviting GERS to file a motion for a preliminary injunction:
" ... the claim construction
rendered herein will not be a “tentative one” subject to change upon receipt of additional
information and evidence, but a definitive one based upon all of the evidence of record at
this point in the litigation. See Int’l Commc’n Mat’ls, Inc. v. Ricoh Co., Ltd., 108 F.3d 316,
318-19 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that district court performed a “tentative construction” of the
claim language to facilitate a decision of the preliminary injunction issue)."
Looks good. The court seems to have sided with GERS on the larger issue, which is that mechanically processing is not meant to be understood as processing with a centrifuge. It also seems like invalidity is not proven.
Excellent!! GERS wins 3 of 4
Here's the most telling statement IMO
Indeed, Defendants state that they “presume” that is what Applicants were referencing. However nothing in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct. Defendants’ assumptions regarding the grounds on which Applicants distinguished from Prevost are completely without support in the record of the prosecution history.
Let all guess which ICM infringing customer will bail and settle first. My monies on Lincolnway Energy, LLC
Which ones are more broke? Would you put your ethanol plant behind this? Good-bye yellow brick road.
Post a Comment