Here is a sale where you can purchase GE motors for up to 65% of.
Until recently they had a tricanter centrifudge for sale, but now you need a password to find out if it is still available.
SkunK
Here is hoping everyone can take some time of this holiday to spend with family. - Merry Christmas!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
ICM is on skid row. They cannot get refinanced and are having fire sales to pay the bills. That is why they have nothing to lose by indemnifying customers against greenShift lawsuits. They will be bankrupt anyway and lay it on the customers. As for their ethanol plant? Do the math.
I bid $1.00 on the whole ICM business. Can anyone beat this offer?
Dear XXXXXXX,
GREENSHIFT CORP(GERSD) has filed a new filing ( View Filing )
Filed: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:31:37 -0600
Form: CORRESP
Links: View Filing
View All Filings for this Company
Click to DEACTIVATE this 10-K Wizard alert.
This email is being sent at your request by 10-K Wizard Technology. If you were mistakenly sent this email, please click on the DEACTIVATE link above or contact support@10kwizard.com (800)365-4608 option 2.
Copyright 2011 10-K Wizard All Rights Reserved.
10-K Wizard is a registered trademark of,
10-K Wizard Technology, LLC
1950 Stemmons Freeway, Ste. 7016
Dallas, Tx 75207
CORRESP
A correspondence can be sent as a document with another submission type or can be sent as a separate submission.
EDGARLink Template 4 EDGARLink Online
XFDL Technical Specification EDGARLink Online XML Technical Specification
Houskeeping?
I would imagine there is probably an amendment to the Q3.
..Metso wins a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States
Press Release: Metso Corporation – Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:03 AM EST
.........
Metso Corporation`s stock exchange release on December 12, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. local time
Metso has won a patent infringement lawsuit against Terex Corporation
On December 9, 2011, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York affirmed the jury`s verdict of December 6, 2010 (see Metso`s stock exchange release of December 7, 2010), that the defendants had willfully infringed Metso`s U.S. patent relating to mobile crushing and screening machines. Due to the willfullness of the infringement, the court doubled the original damages award to USD 31.6 million covering the infringing sales from March 2000 through October 2007. In addition, the defendants will have to pay for additional compensation covering infringing sales after October 2007, which will be accounted for later and also doubled. The final compensation for Metso will also include interest.
In July 2011, the court issued an order permanently barring the defendants from marketing their mobile screening machines that were found infringing Metso`s patents.
SAN JOSE, Calif., Dec. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Verizon Communications /quotes/zigman/262341/quotes/nls/vz VZ +0.16% yesterday lost yet another decision in United States District Court in the ongoing patent infringement case that was brought against the company by ActiveVideo Networks(TM).
Judge Raymond A. Jackson, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, denied a motion by Verizon seeking to stay the monthly royalty payments imposed by a November 23 court injunction, and directed Verizon to make the first monthly payment on December 16, as indicated by the injunction.
In four separate decisions, Verizon has been found liable for up to $250 million in damages, supplemental damages, interest and royalties for its infringement of ActiveVideo intellectual property. The November 23 injunction ordered Verizon to make the first of monthly sunset royalty payments of $2.74 per subscriber per month by December 16. In addition, the injunction issued on November 23 ordered Verizon to terminate FiOS Video-on-Demand service on May 23, 2012, if it cannot offer the service without unlawfully using ActiveVideo technology.
In rejecting Verizon's latest effort the court held as follows: "Staying the royalty portion of the injunction would serve no legitimate purpose. It would merely provide Verizon the freedom to continue to infringe without any recourse to the prevailing Plaintiff."
"We continue to be mystified by Verizon's insistence on litigating this matter, and are grateful that the Court once again has recognized the merits of our arguments," said Jeff Miller, president and CEO of ActiveVideo Networks. "I want to make it clear that we will do everything necessary to continue to prevail in this case, should Verizon continue in its ongoing act of piracy, and we will not hesitate to demand that FiOS VOD, widgets and any other infringing services be terminated on May 23 if our rights remain violated."
ActiveVideo filed suit against Verizon in May, 2010, after its patent protections and ability to do business were compromised by a Verizon suit against Cablevision Systems Corp., an ActiveVideo customer. The ActiveVideo suit alleged that the Verizon FiOS television service infringed four patents for technology created, owned and used by ActiveVideo. The patents, which are fundamental to interactive television services such as video on demand, include:
United States Patent No. 6,034,678, titled "Cable Television System With Remote Interactive Processor;"
United States Patent No. 5,550,578, titled "Interactive And Conventional Television Information System;"
United States Patent No. 6,100,883, titled "Home Interface Controller For Providing Interactive Cable Television;" and
United States Patent No. 6,205,582, titled "Interactive Cable Television System with Frame Server."
A jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Verizon infringed all of the asserted claims.
Having pioneered cloud-based delivery of VOD and interactive television, ActiveVideo has a substantial and fundamental portfolio of patents dating back to the early 1990s. The ActiveVideo CloudTV(TM) platform is currently deployed with major cable system operators, including Cablevision. It offers solutions for video on demand navigation, interactive games, and many other interactive services.
December 8, 2011
| Share Indiana District Court's Verdict for Alcon Laboratories in Patent Infringement Suit Over Eye Medication Now Pending on Appeal
Indianapolis, IN - A patent infringement judgment from the Southern District of Indiana will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In May, Chief Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana issued a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs Alcon Research Ltd., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., both of Fort Worth, Texas and Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd.) of Tokyo, Japan, after a bench trial on the plaintiff's patent infringement claims against Apotex, Inc., of Ontario, Canada and Apotex Corp. Weston, Florida. Alcon filed a complaint alleging Apotex infringed patent no.5,641,805, TOPICAL OPHTHALMIC FORMULATIONS FOR TREATING ALLERGIC EYE DISEASES, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.
Chief Judge Young presided over a bench trial April 26, 2010 to May 7, 2010, and final arguments were presented to the court on August 3, 2010. The Court found that plaintiffs had "proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendants' generic equivalent of Plaintiffs' patented allergy topical ocular medication, Patanol®;, infringed claims 1-8 of the '805 patent[,]" and that the defendant failed to show, by preponderance of evidence, that the patent claims were invalid. The court also found that the defendants failed to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that the '805 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Apotex has appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (docket number 2011-1455). Apotex's brief was filed on October 3, 2011, and Alcon's brief is due on December 23, 2011.
Practice Tip: One of the defenses raised by Apotex was to claim the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Apotex claimed that one of the inventors of the '805 failed to disclose results of certain tests and other data in the patent application. Apotex claimed the inventor as well as the attorney who filed the patent application violated their duty of candor to the PTO, which is imposes pursuant federal regulations 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c). Alcon, however, presented evidence that the tests in question were believed to be inconclusive and that the inventor simply forgot about another test. Under the totality of circumstances, the court found that a finding of deceptive intent was not warranted. The court, therefore, declined to find that the patent should not be enforceable under the theory of inequitable conduct.
Apple News, Tips and ReviewsEventsGigaOM.tvResearch.HomeAppleBroadbandCleantechCloudCollaborationMobileVideo.Apple
Custom Search
Web
..LoadingMotorola Mobility wins injunction against Apple in Germany
By Darrell Etherington Dec. 9, 2011, 5:35am PT 2 Comments
.inShare.23.On Friday morning, FOSS Patents reported that the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany ruled in favor of Motorola Mobility in one of the patent infringement cases brought by the company against Apple. It’s a significant ruling that represents a major victory for the company Google is in the process of buying.
The ruling includes an injunction that is “preliminarily enforceable” against Apple Sales International, Apple’s Ireland-based EU wholesale subsidiary. The injunction covers a wide range of products, including all iPhones as well as 3G-enabled iPads, since it deals with European patent 1010336 (B1), which describes a “method for performing countdown function during a mobile-originated transfer for a packet radio system.”
It’s a significant ruling, because although Motorola previously secured a similar injunction against Apple in Germany, that one was based on a default judgment, meaning that Apple never presented a defense in the case. For Friday’s ruling, the court ruled after both sides had the opportunity to present their full arguments.
justice will prevail here as well.
A common theme is infringers tend to remain defiant till the end, but in the end, pay more damages for their defiance. Judges uphold patents, infringers lose.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Due to the willfullness of the infringement, the court doubled the original damages award to USD 31.6 million covering the infringing sales from March 2000 through October 2007. In addition, the defendants will have to pay for additional compensation covering infringing sales after October 2007, which will be accounted for later and also doubled. The final compensation for Metso will also include interest.
In four separate decisions, Verizon has been found liable for up to $250 million in damages, supplemental damages, interest and royalties for its infringement of ActiveVideo intellectual property.
Post a Comment