I am the SkunKhunter. I hunt down SkunK stocks. Those are stocks that have been beat down past any reasonable justification. I try to ride the stock up as market forces eventually right the ship of PPS. A SkunK is not a herd animal. He is a scavenger who knows that arriving before the herd means big profits and clean shoes. This is the journey of the GreenShift Corporation. Updated weekly between COB Friday and Sunday evening. (Disclaimers on Bottom of Site)
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Defendant's + Adkins Reply
Except for the first link this is all about the Defendant's side of the Dave Cantrell deposition.
The defendants were wrong before and gers has been right on each issue. Think of marksman. They lost their prevost prior art arguments. Now they are arguing that gers' own patents are prior art. Anyone want to lay odds on that one? Do they even have any other arguments left?
That is true but GERS was totally taken a back by this email dated earlier then claimed. GERS stated themselves that, had this been presented to them sooner, they would have filed for a new review with the USPTO. To me this shows that they acknowledge that there is at least a possibility of an invalidity finding based on this.
The defendants reply doesn't make GERS look so good and brings up a legitimate case for invalidity.
ReplyDeleteThe defendants were wrong before and gers has been right on each issue. Think of marksman. They lost their prevost prior art arguments. Now they are arguing that gers' own patents are prior art. Anyone want to lay odds on that one? Do they even have any other arguments left?
ReplyDeleteThat is true but GERS was totally taken a back by this email dated earlier then claimed. GERS stated themselves that, had this been presented to them sooner, they would have filed for a new review with the USPTO. To me this shows that they acknowledge that there is at least a possibility of an invalidity finding based on this.
ReplyDelete