Friday, October 7, 2011

Markman Transcript

The Markman hearing transcript will be public in ninety days.  Before it is released both parties have a chance to redact.  Here is what I saw when I tried to access it:
You do not have access to this transcript.
TRANSCRIPT of Markman Hearing held on August 22, 2011 before Judge Larry J. McKinney. (132 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Cathy Jones (Telephone: (317) 423-0436). Please review the USDC Transcript Policy for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 10/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/5/2012. (Jones, Cathy)
More Rules - see Here
The 20 page filing below is very revealing about the desperate, bush league tactics the defendants have resorted to.  Sorry, but I am trying to be kind.  I am not going out on a limb saying they are not gonna get the sportsmanship award.  It will be interesting to see what the judge thinks.  I see the GreenShift lawyers gave importance to the same telling ICM PR that the SkunK did:
"On September 15, 2011, CleanTech’s counsel sent Defendants’ counsel a letter (Exh. E) addressing, among other things, ICM’s press release dated August 9, 2011 titled “ICM, Inc. Continues to Offer Oil Extraction Alternatives.” In its press release, ICM claimed that “[t]here is substantial evidence not before the USPTO and not yet presented to the federal courts that impacts the validity of the GreenShift patents.”
And have the same idea as the SkunK about how discovery should work:
"Here, defense counsel deliberately delayed production of critical responsive documents by claiming work-product privilege while all the while intending to produce these documents in order to sandbag Mr. Cantrell. This bad faith strategy was orchestrated to shock and embarrass Mr. Cantrell and eliminate the ability of Mr. Cantrell and his attorneys to discuss the documents and prepare for the deposition. Such bad faith, dilatory tactics fly in the face of the discovery rules and the Case Management Order and should not be countenanced by the Court."
Very Important is this First Footnote:
"CleanTech vehemently denies that the wrongfully withheld documents affect the validity of the patents-in-suit."
You Gotta read this  - it is 20 pages and has the above quotes.
GreenShift's motion for protective order and order for defendants to produce documents HERE

Under Seal
There is also about four sealed motions mixed in with the GreenShift filings that I cannot access  - they are sealed - but I figure they also are GreenShift's since they look like they were filed together with the other open GreenShift filings.


wayback said...

checking your blog every morning is like (Sherlock Holmes detective stories) i know the skunk found something and he to will give his input,, great work skunk where is the donation button..

Anonymous said...

Thank you posting all this information Skunk. I hope one of those sealed docs is a motion for declaratory judgement. Cantrell deserves to be able to enjoy the fruits of his life's labor. Ollie

Anonymous said...

I meant to say "default" judgement above - as the document describes on page 13. Maybe there is not sufficient cause here but I hope that is one of the sealed documents. ollie

Anonymous said...

I've been re-reading skunk's late 2010 blogs related to the offer for sale to Agri-energy and allegations of prior art.

Possibly what ICM surprised Cantrell with during deposition was some document that supports the notion that the written offer for sale was made PRIOR to the critical cut off date of the provisional patent. That's just a guess. Any other ideas? --Ollie

Anonymous said...

Okay, they are a-holes and that has already been determined times over. But do they have contention to the validity of the pataent. What is the document(s)?

Anonymous said...

Skunk. When do you think we will hear something about the temp injunction ?

Anonymous said...

People, does anyone know if we are still reverse splitting? I sure hope not becuase then maybe us longs will be safe. Peace out people.

Free Blog CounterTamron