Patent application fees can add up over the course of a year. One way to reduce these costs by half is to claim Small Entity Status. (Background HERE)
Without getting too deep in the weeds, a small entity is basically an individual, a nonprofit organization, or a small business with less than 500 employees. GreenShift has claimed this status until this last week.
SEE HERE for the changes recorded between 22-26 July 2011.
Now before we get all excited and and make a big deal about GreenShift no longer being a small business through some imagined "Big Deal" - here is another caveat. You also cannot claim small entity status if you license your invention to someone who cannot claim small entity status (think Sunoco?) So maybe that is all it is. Some of these patent applications are an offspring of a GreenShift COES patent that has been licensed - so that seems to make sense . . .
(Scratch grey whiskers here)
But if that is true, why did GreenShift drop small entity status for prosecution of "Method of Blending Fuels and Related System?" It is not tied to the other patents that have been licensed. Also the one producing Lipids and the one using flash Desiccation . . . None of these have been licensed to a Large Entity . . . Or have they?
Here are three possible options:
1. GreenShift is no longer a Small Business?
2. We have non-COES licenses with a Large Entity we are yet unaware of?
3. (Skunk's present favorite) We changing our small entity status due to caution, for instance if you are not a small entity in one area then maybe you cannot claim the status in another?
SkunK
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Cash Flow Worksheet
Here is a nice Cash Flow Worksheet, that Neil a reader has but together. You cannot argue the results since they are based on math. However you can argue the assumptions, which, if you change, modify the results. Assumptions are what you need to make in order to predict the future and they are laid out nicely for you on the last page. Modify an assumption within reason and you flex the numbers, but the up trend remains.
This took a lot of work and shows a movement that is very hard to argue with. That trend is GreenShift moving quickly towards profitability based on increasing cash flows as the COES already licenced continue to ramp up.
SEE HERE
Enjoy,
And thanks again Neil.
SkunK
This took a lot of work and shows a movement that is very hard to argue with. That trend is GreenShift moving quickly towards profitability based on increasing cash flows as the COES already licenced continue to ramp up.
SEE HERE
Enjoy,
And thanks again Neil.
SkunK
Thursday, July 28, 2011
GPRE Earnings Transcript
Corn oil production made a significant contribution in our profitability generating $6.3 million of operating income and the sale of 21.5 million pounds of the product. Eight of our nine plants are in full production and the ninth plant will be producing corn oil by the end of the third quarter. We expect to be producing over 25 million pounds per quarter going forward with the additional plant and improved yield as we line out our equipment and debottleneck that process.
Because of the significant contribution corn oil makes to our business, we’ve broken it out as a segment for reporting purposes and remember we report corn oil as a net number after keeping our plants whole for the storage grains revenues and covering expenses related to the production of oil.
SEE HERE
SkunK
We saw this coming. Now everyone can see it. Major Ethanol Producer starts off the Conference Call with corn oil. With tight Ethanol margins - corn oil made the difference.
This is better than a "PR", this is an "IR" - Industry Relations . . .
Because of the significant contribution corn oil makes to our business, we’ve broken it out as a segment for reporting purposes and remember we report corn oil as a net number after keeping our plants whole for the storage grains revenues and covering expenses related to the production of oil.
SEE HERE
SkunK
We saw this coming. Now everyone can see it. Major Ethanol Producer starts off the Conference Call with corn oil. With tight Ethanol margins - corn oil made the difference.
This is better than a "PR", this is an "IR" - Industry Relations . . .
Corn Oil Extraction now has (wall) Street Cred
Get a load of those Corn Oil numbers in GPRE's 2Q!
Out of nowhere?
Corn oil has now officially burst on the scene. This is Big. GPRE is one of the largest public companies producing ethanol. First they produced no corn oil. Next they signed an agreement to use GreenShift's patented technologies. Now they are producing a lot of corn oil. How much is important - but not nearly as important as to what it did to their bottom line. In the 2nd quarter GPRE gross profits in their corn oil segment was over 40% of what was achieved in their entire Ethanol division. Corn Oil operating income was nearly 55% of what was achieved in their entire Ethanol Division. For a relatively small capital outlay - this is having huge results in a time of tightening ethanol margins! This type of news travels fast. I predict every single Ethanol Producer decision maker who is still sitting on the sidelines - they will either get some kind of corn oil extraction plan now - or their replacements will.
My unsolicited suggestion? Don't low ball it. Do it right. Use the right equipment, use patented technologies and experienced support. Do it the way GPRE did it. From corn oil zero to corn oil profits. They have quickly built another significant, successful portion of their business.
SkunK
GPRE CC at 10 am today. (I will miss it - Hope someone posts the corn oil clock times in comments)
Here is link to their numbers that I used above.
Out of nowhere?
Corn oil has now officially burst on the scene. This is Big. GPRE is one of the largest public companies producing ethanol. First they produced no corn oil. Next they signed an agreement to use GreenShift's patented technologies. Now they are producing a lot of corn oil. How much is important - but not nearly as important as to what it did to their bottom line. In the 2nd quarter GPRE gross profits in their corn oil segment was over 40% of what was achieved in their entire Ethanol division. Corn Oil operating income was nearly 55% of what was achieved in their entire Ethanol Division. For a relatively small capital outlay - this is having huge results in a time of tightening ethanol margins! This type of news travels fast. I predict every single Ethanol Producer decision maker who is still sitting on the sidelines - they will either get some kind of corn oil extraction plan now - or their replacements will.
My unsolicited suggestion? Don't low ball it. Do it right. Use the right equipment, use patented technologies and experienced support. Do it the way GPRE did it. From corn oil zero to corn oil profits. They have quickly built another significant, successful portion of their business.
SkunK
GPRE CC at 10 am today. (I will miss it - Hope someone posts the corn oil clock times in comments)
Here is link to their numbers that I used above.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
GPRE Reports
"Corn oil production, marketing and distribution, and agribusiness accounted for 42% of segment operating income, allowing us to record our ninth consecutive quarter of profitability during a period of compressed ethanol industry margins. We expect the contribution from corn oil production to increase further as eight of our nine plants are fully operational and the ninth plant is expected to have corn oil extraction technology deployed by the end of the third quarter. We also produced and sold a record 184 million gallons of ethanol, which is a 41% increase over the second quarter of 2010," Becker added.
"We expect our profitability to improve sequentially over the next two quarters, as ethanol margins have expanded over the last 90 days. We have been able to lock away significant portions of our ethanol margins, all corn oil production will be online and the market remains strong for each of these products. Our agribusiness segment should have a solid finish in 2011 as crops around our facilities are currently in good shape," commented Becker.
SEE HERE
SkunK
PS look at those charts on the bottom for corn oil - that is in thousands.
"We expect our profitability to improve sequentially over the next two quarters, as ethanol margins have expanded over the last 90 days. We have been able to lock away significant portions of our ethanol margins, all corn oil production will be online and the market remains strong for each of these products. Our agribusiness segment should have a solid finish in 2011 as crops around our facilities are currently in good shape," commented Becker.
SEE HERE
SkunK
PS look at those charts on the bottom for corn oil - that is in thousands.
Where we are Vs Where we want to be
We appear to be operating the company using operating income produced by royalties from Corn Oil Extraction Licenses. We also appear to not quite have enough operating income to service our other expenses - namely the servicing of our legacy debt. The difference is being made up in the conversion of debt to equity - namely the dilution of common stock. In my opinion, for the reason I just stated, any talk of a stock buy back now is premature. We are selling stock (granted at a slower and slower rate) to raise money to service the debt. Where would the money come to buy back the stock? Sell stock at a discount to buy the same stock back at market prices?? Sounds good only if you are a broker working on commission!
In about four months the company expects to be operating at a profit "on an annualized basis". That means that they may not show a profit for 2011, however they expect to show an ever increasing profit moving forward. They will have more income than necessary to meet all expenses, including the servicing of the debt. Since at that point, and not before (although the rate should continue to shrink), forced dilution will stop, hopefully for good.
At some point, say after a solid profitable 1Q, I would expect an announcement of how that profit is being utilized. Debt reduction is key, however a small but steady buyback program at that point might be a very cost effective way to get the word out that this puppy has turned the corner. Dilution is the albatross to new investment - especially here.
In my opinion, a small but steady buyback, maybe based on a set fraction of the profits over a quarter or two would be far more effective at getting the word out than the same amount of money spent on an expanded PR program. The company must reduce and eliminate the debt, but a solid share struture with an increasing pps will help to facilitate that.
As we get into the 2Q - With profit, a small buyback program, decreasing debt, increasing stock price - New finacing should be available at this point to allow conventional finacing to wipe out the high rates we needed to attrack finacing when GERS was high risk. As we become low risk - and not before -then our finacing rates will reflect that.
Lets talk share structure. The reason Mr. Kreisler holds 80% of the company through preferred shares is because it is collateral for the legacy debt. This arrangment protects YAGI, the chief creditor, from the dilution which other shareholders suffer. It may sound unfair to us, but if we had 50 Million dollars to invest in the company we might be able to demand a pretty sweet deal as well. Mr. Kreisler cannot sell those shares, never has sold any and GreenShift would be in default if he tried to. The idea that he is being enriched because he holds shares he cannot sell is simply not true on its face. Also as part of the agreement he cannot promise those shares to anyone - he cannot even promise to get rid of them when YAGI is paid off. To do so would also put GreenShift in technical default. However, he has ran up to the line and used language to suggest that is what will happen. I fully expect the 80% preferred shares will be gone when their purpose has been served (Legacy debt paid off). I am not saying a new share structure in a profitable company will not reward the present management handsomely (as well as the shareholders), however the 80% dilution proof structure in my opinion will be gone. The 80% share structure impedes investment as much as the present low share price - so even management has a reason to see it gone.
Conclusions that the SkunK has come to:
1. Dilution will shrink but continue until we are profitable. (end of this year?)
2. Any future buy back will NOT come until we are securely profitable. (1-2 profitable Qs)
3. Profit, a small buyback program, decreasing debt, increasing stock price may combine to produce finacing that can eliminate remaining YAGI debt in one fell swoop.
4. With YAGI debt gone, the 80% protected preferreds will disappear in a new share structure.
5. Although I did not discuss litigation, a decent settlement would likely send my timeline applecart rolling up the hill like a runaway train. Basically put the foot on the gas and compress the timeline into days and weeks, instead of months.
Like always - Make your own decisions,
GLTA,
SkunK
In about four months the company expects to be operating at a profit "on an annualized basis". That means that they may not show a profit for 2011, however they expect to show an ever increasing profit moving forward. They will have more income than necessary to meet all expenses, including the servicing of the debt. Since at that point, and not before (although the rate should continue to shrink), forced dilution will stop, hopefully for good.
At some point, say after a solid profitable 1Q, I would expect an announcement of how that profit is being utilized. Debt reduction is key, however a small but steady buyback program at that point might be a very cost effective way to get the word out that this puppy has turned the corner. Dilution is the albatross to new investment - especially here.
In my opinion, a small but steady buyback, maybe based on a set fraction of the profits over a quarter or two would be far more effective at getting the word out than the same amount of money spent on an expanded PR program. The company must reduce and eliminate the debt, but a solid share struture with an increasing pps will help to facilitate that.
As we get into the 2Q - With profit, a small buyback program, decreasing debt, increasing stock price - New finacing should be available at this point to allow conventional finacing to wipe out the high rates we needed to attrack finacing when GERS was high risk. As we become low risk - and not before -then our finacing rates will reflect that.
Lets talk share structure. The reason Mr. Kreisler holds 80% of the company through preferred shares is because it is collateral for the legacy debt. This arrangment protects YAGI, the chief creditor, from the dilution which other shareholders suffer. It may sound unfair to us, but if we had 50 Million dollars to invest in the company we might be able to demand a pretty sweet deal as well. Mr. Kreisler cannot sell those shares, never has sold any and GreenShift would be in default if he tried to. The idea that he is being enriched because he holds shares he cannot sell is simply not true on its face. Also as part of the agreement he cannot promise those shares to anyone - he cannot even promise to get rid of them when YAGI is paid off. To do so would also put GreenShift in technical default. However, he has ran up to the line and used language to suggest that is what will happen. I fully expect the 80% preferred shares will be gone when their purpose has been served (Legacy debt paid off). I am not saying a new share structure in a profitable company will not reward the present management handsomely (as well as the shareholders), however the 80% dilution proof structure in my opinion will be gone. The 80% share structure impedes investment as much as the present low share price - so even management has a reason to see it gone.
Conclusions that the SkunK has come to:
1. Dilution will shrink but continue until we are profitable. (end of this year?)
2. Any future buy back will NOT come until we are securely profitable. (1-2 profitable Qs)
3. Profit, a small buyback program, decreasing debt, increasing stock price may combine to produce finacing that can eliminate remaining YAGI debt in one fell swoop.
4. With YAGI debt gone, the 80% protected preferreds will disappear in a new share structure.
5. Although I did not discuss litigation, a decent settlement would likely send my timeline applecart rolling up the hill like a runaway train. Basically put the foot on the gas and compress the timeline into days and weeks, instead of months.
Like always - Make your own decisions,
GLTA,
SkunK
Confirmation
The SkunK wrote Mr. Kevin Kreisler and included the letter posted in the comment section this afternoon. I asked "Can you confirm this is from GreenShift?" His answer: "It was." Since it is confirmed I have reprinted it below.
I also asked:
"Can you add comments on the 1.9 billion gallons per year of licensed ethanol production? Is it through the acquisitions and expansion of present customers, or is it new customers to be named at a later date?"
Mr. Kreisler's response :
"More than about 1.9 billion gallons per year of licensed ethanol production. None of it by acquisition or expansion with the exception of two smaller plants earlier this year."
***********************
"We appreciate your concerns. I hope the following is helpful:
First, a reverse split is needed to comply with our loan agreements. Avoidable concerns with loan compliance will arise before the end of the year if our lenders require conversions of more than about $200,000 in debt per quarter, which is likely to occur. Action needs to be taken today to ensure that we have sufficient authorized stock to prevent any default events before they occur. Next, we are not allowed by law to issue stock at prices below the par value of our common stock ($0.0001 per share). Since our lenders have the right to demand and receive shares of our common stock at a discount to market prices, we are forced to incur costly penalties as debt is converted into stock. These penalties have the potential to be substantial depending on market conditions, and they will interfere with our ability to meet our stated 2011 goals unless we take action now."
"Significant recent market changes are also relevant. Various third party companies involved with the transfer of our common stock have implemented changes in their policies and procedures that have had a negative impact on all of us. For example, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTC”), a company responsible for all electronic transfers of stock, has ceased to provide transfer services involving many small companies including GreenShift. In another example, TD Ameritrade, Inc., as well as several other retail brokers, have refused to allow several of our shareholders to execute investment decisions involving our stock, citing the substantial cost of completing physical transfers (paper and mail) of our stock due to our ineligibility for DTC’s electronic transfer services. In still another example, in June 2011, Penson Financial Services, Inc., one of the largest of a group of companies that provides essential transactional services for transfers of stock, published a new restriction that it would not accept deposits of equity securities that are priced below $0.10 per share. Penson cited the “substantial additional requirements” it has historically absorbed as well as the increased cost and risk of providing clearing services for companies that do not meet Penson’s new criteria. It is possible, if not probable, that other clearing firms will make similar changes in the near future. These market changes collectively show a clear trend towards reduced market access for small companies with negative implications that we should all consider. A split can help to offset these concerns by reducing transactional costs for these entities while giving our stock the ability to meet third party requirements as they arise."
"Without a split, we collectively face increased risk of debt default, costly penalties for payments priced below par value, increasingly more stringent market restrictions, and reduced access to the equity markets. However, opportunity costs should also be taken into account. A key question here is whether we will be able to meet our goals faster or more cost-effectively with a split. Consider the last 90 days. Our annual report reported satisfaction of all of our goals for 2010, especially including our return to positive cash flow. Our March 31, 2011 quarterly report demonstrated significant additional progress, including another $7 million of debt reduction and our transition to operating income. We have won and announced significant new business, bringing our penetration to more than about 1.9 billion gallons per year of licensed ethanol production. And, yet, the price of our stock today is the same as it was six months ago, resisting appreciation in the face of significant progress and dramatically reduced debt conversions in 2011 as compared to prior years.
Finally, the split is also intended to facilitate additional debt reduction and further improvement of our balance sheet. Additional updates in this regard will be provided in the coming weeks.
Thank you for your continued interest and support.
Regards,
Investor Relations"
*****************************
SkunK
I also asked:
"Can you add comments on the 1.9 billion gallons per year of licensed ethanol production? Is it through the acquisitions and expansion of present customers, or is it new customers to be named at a later date?"
Mr. Kreisler's response :
"More than about 1.9 billion gallons per year of licensed ethanol production. None of it by acquisition or expansion with the exception of two smaller plants earlier this year."
***********************
"We appreciate your concerns. I hope the following is helpful:
First, a reverse split is needed to comply with our loan agreements. Avoidable concerns with loan compliance will arise before the end of the year if our lenders require conversions of more than about $200,000 in debt per quarter, which is likely to occur. Action needs to be taken today to ensure that we have sufficient authorized stock to prevent any default events before they occur. Next, we are not allowed by law to issue stock at prices below the par value of our common stock ($0.0001 per share). Since our lenders have the right to demand and receive shares of our common stock at a discount to market prices, we are forced to incur costly penalties as debt is converted into stock. These penalties have the potential to be substantial depending on market conditions, and they will interfere with our ability to meet our stated 2011 goals unless we take action now."
"Significant recent market changes are also relevant. Various third party companies involved with the transfer of our common stock have implemented changes in their policies and procedures that have had a negative impact on all of us. For example, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTC”), a company responsible for all electronic transfers of stock, has ceased to provide transfer services involving many small companies including GreenShift. In another example, TD Ameritrade, Inc., as well as several other retail brokers, have refused to allow several of our shareholders to execute investment decisions involving our stock, citing the substantial cost of completing physical transfers (paper and mail) of our stock due to our ineligibility for DTC’s electronic transfer services. In still another example, in June 2011, Penson Financial Services, Inc., one of the largest of a group of companies that provides essential transactional services for transfers of stock, published a new restriction that it would not accept deposits of equity securities that are priced below $0.10 per share. Penson cited the “substantial additional requirements” it has historically absorbed as well as the increased cost and risk of providing clearing services for companies that do not meet Penson’s new criteria. It is possible, if not probable, that other clearing firms will make similar changes in the near future. These market changes collectively show a clear trend towards reduced market access for small companies with negative implications that we should all consider. A split can help to offset these concerns by reducing transactional costs for these entities while giving our stock the ability to meet third party requirements as they arise."
"Without a split, we collectively face increased risk of debt default, costly penalties for payments priced below par value, increasingly more stringent market restrictions, and reduced access to the equity markets. However, opportunity costs should also be taken into account. A key question here is whether we will be able to meet our goals faster or more cost-effectively with a split. Consider the last 90 days. Our annual report reported satisfaction of all of our goals for 2010, especially including our return to positive cash flow. Our March 31, 2011 quarterly report demonstrated significant additional progress, including another $7 million of debt reduction and our transition to operating income. We have won and announced significant new business, bringing our penetration to more than about 1.9 billion gallons per year of licensed ethanol production. And, yet, the price of our stock today is the same as it was six months ago, resisting appreciation in the face of significant progress and dramatically reduced debt conversions in 2011 as compared to prior years.
Finally, the split is also intended to facilitate additional debt reduction and further improvement of our balance sheet. Additional updates in this regard will be provided in the coming weeks.
Thank you for your continued interest and support.
Regards,
Investor Relations"
*****************************
SkunK
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Recent Notice of Allowance (+Roll)
I have been watching this recent of Notice of Allowance for the 4th patent for some time. It was withdrawn after it had a previous notice of allowance so that it could be looked at with the additional information thrown at it by those who are trying to contest it. It was reissued after those things were studied. If GreenShift were not to keep resubmitting it, then I imagine the accused infringers would claim "If they had only been aware of this - those patents would not have been granted~!!" Hopefully we are getting near the end of these resubmissions . . .
Look here and get a load of these submissions. With contesters apparently running low on ammo, the patent office is tasked with having to go back over a hundred years - (twice) - even checking out an old DeLaval 1880s patent to try and find that the GreenShift patents are obvious.
(SkunK gets on a Roll)
Patents from four different countries were also reviewed, with a German Westfalia patent from '97, and other patents from Great Britian, France and Japan. Even a list of patent "applications". WOW, I find that fascinating indeed.
You would have thought that if this new technology that is rocking the industry was just "so obvious" before the GreenShift patents, someone would have taken the time to build a corn oil extraction system, or even write down the idea . . . somewhere . . . oh wait . . . here is a 61 page thesis written by Harriet Winfield, "The Oil of Maize", published in 1899 and found in a dusty corner of the University of Wisconsin Library. Maybe SHE wrote down the idea of how to extract oil successfully from the modern Ethanol Fleet and made these GreenShift patents obvious???? No, much to the surprise of everyone, the patent office has now officially declared she did not. (see last entry, page three)
Those who are fighting the patents must be gonna run out of things to throw at the wall soon.
SkunK
GreenShift Receives New Corn Oil Extraction Patent
Impact of New Patent Allowance
Presumed Valid
The U.S. Patent Act provides that a “patent shall be presumed valid.” [Removing all potential outcomes from the debate, it seems it would be extremely difficult for alleged infringers to argue that they are acting in a way that presumes GreenShift's four patents are valid.]
Defendant’s Burden
Alleged infringers have the burden of establishing invalidity. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the long-standing principal of U.S. patent law that an alleged infringer can only overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating invalidity with “clear and convincing evidence.” The USPTO has considered all of the defendants’ alleged prior art materials and invalidity arguments and, by allowing the ‘231 Patent Application, the USPTO has determined that the defendants’ materials and arguments are insufficient to establish invalidity. [In order for the court to find GreenShift's multiple patents invalid, they would now have to take the same information provided to multiple patent officials (who are experts in this field - while judges are experts in the law) and form a different conclusion. Declaring a patent invalid based on information not available to the patent official is one thing, but to do it based on the same information is quite another.]
Damages are Accruing
GreenShift is entitled to, at a minimum, reasonable royalties for all historical recovery of corn oil. Those that have infringed or plan to infringe on GreenShift’s patents are creating ever-increasing risk for their investors and employees. [This is the first time I have seen GreenShift acknowledge the threat to Ethanol Plant Employees that extended infringement brings. When business add significant cash flow through the willful infringement of numerous valid patents, the future of that business is NOT secure. Anyone who induces and promotes infringement through promises of indemnification is in my opinion irresponsible, dangerous to those who buy into it and will eventually be disruptive to the Ethanol Fleet when the bill comes due - that no one can pay. This disruption - i.e. closed doors, is the threat to employees that I believe GreenShift is referring to. The risk to stakeholders is much more obvious.] [ps How many bets for a "million dollars" did you make in grade school while playing on the Monkey Bars? If you won I suspect you settled, at best, for a friend's chocolate milk during lunch. Has anyone who is relying on indemnification actually done the math and figured up the potential costs to yourselves and others, added it to the potential personal and corporate costs of those who promised to indemnify? And then looked at their ability to pay? Are you prepared to settle for a Chocolate Milk on that xxx million dollar gamble??]
Obvious Consequences
GreenShift will vigorously protect the competitive advantage of its licensees, and will seek the maximum allowable damages against those that infringe and any party that contributes to infringement, including treble damages for willful infringement. (Based on a 20% royalty fee, triple damages start at 60% of all corn oil produced over the period of infrigement)
Personal Liability
GreenShift will also pursue appropriate claims of personal liability for those decision makers that induce the direct infringement of GreenShift's patents. [This quote explains the special circumstances of piercing the corporate veil in a patent case: "In contrast, a person charged with inducing patent infringement or contributing to the patent infringement of another cannot hide behind a corporate structure. The principals and employees of a company can be personally liable for inducement of infringement by knowingly and intentionally inducing another to infringe a patent. Similarly, the principals and employees of a company can be personally liable for contributory infringement by knowingly selling components for a patented invention that have no non-infringing uses. A patent owner does not have to pierce the corporate veil to charge a company principal or employee of inducement of infringement or contributory infringement. The patent owner, however, will have to prove that there was infringement, and that the person charged participated in the wrong-doing." Sourced here]
Do Your Due Diligence
GreenShift now has four patents issued and allowed with many more pending that broadly cover concentration and recovery of corn oil from whole stillage and/or its derivatives.
SEE HERE
SkunK
Everything in blue today is SkunK's opinion. Your's is welcome in the comment section.
Presumed Valid
The U.S. Patent Act provides that a “patent shall be presumed valid.” [Removing all potential outcomes from the debate, it seems it would be extremely difficult for alleged infringers to argue that they are acting in a way that presumes GreenShift's four patents are valid.]
Defendant’s Burden
Alleged infringers have the burden of establishing invalidity. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the long-standing principal of U.S. patent law that an alleged infringer can only overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating invalidity with “clear and convincing evidence.” The USPTO has considered all of the defendants’ alleged prior art materials and invalidity arguments and, by allowing the ‘231 Patent Application, the USPTO has determined that the defendants’ materials and arguments are insufficient to establish invalidity. [In order for the court to find GreenShift's multiple patents invalid, they would now have to take the same information provided to multiple patent officials (who are experts in this field - while judges are experts in the law) and form a different conclusion. Declaring a patent invalid based on information not available to the patent official is one thing, but to do it based on the same information is quite another.]
Damages are Accruing
GreenShift is entitled to, at a minimum, reasonable royalties for all historical recovery of corn oil. Those that have infringed or plan to infringe on GreenShift’s patents are creating ever-increasing risk for their investors and employees. [This is the first time I have seen GreenShift acknowledge the threat to Ethanol Plant Employees that extended infringement brings. When business add significant cash flow through the willful infringement of numerous valid patents, the future of that business is NOT secure. Anyone who induces and promotes infringement through promises of indemnification is in my opinion irresponsible, dangerous to those who buy into it and will eventually be disruptive to the Ethanol Fleet when the bill comes due - that no one can pay. This disruption - i.e. closed doors, is the threat to employees that I believe GreenShift is referring to. The risk to stakeholders is much more obvious.] [ps How many bets for a "million dollars" did you make in grade school while playing on the Monkey Bars? If you won I suspect you settled, at best, for a friend's chocolate milk during lunch. Has anyone who is relying on indemnification actually done the math and figured up the potential costs to yourselves and others, added it to the potential personal and corporate costs of those who promised to indemnify? And then looked at their ability to pay? Are you prepared to settle for a Chocolate Milk on that xxx million dollar gamble??]
Obvious Consequences
GreenShift will vigorously protect the competitive advantage of its licensees, and will seek the maximum allowable damages against those that infringe and any party that contributes to infringement, including treble damages for willful infringement. (Based on a 20% royalty fee, triple damages start at 60% of all corn oil produced over the period of infrigement)
Personal Liability
GreenShift will also pursue appropriate claims of personal liability for those decision makers that induce the direct infringement of GreenShift's patents. [This quote explains the special circumstances of piercing the corporate veil in a patent case: "In contrast, a person charged with inducing patent infringement or contributing to the patent infringement of another cannot hide behind a corporate structure. The principals and employees of a company can be personally liable for inducement of infringement by knowingly and intentionally inducing another to infringe a patent. Similarly, the principals and employees of a company can be personally liable for contributory infringement by knowingly selling components for a patented invention that have no non-infringing uses. A patent owner does not have to pierce the corporate veil to charge a company principal or employee of inducement of infringement or contributory infringement. The patent owner, however, will have to prove that there was infringement, and that the person charged participated in the wrong-doing." Sourced here]
Do Your Due Diligence
GreenShift now has four patents issued and allowed with many more pending that broadly cover concentration and recovery of corn oil from whole stillage and/or its derivatives.
SEE HERE
SkunK
Everything in blue today is SkunK's opinion. Your's is welcome in the comment section.
New Customers?
31 March . . .
"About 10% of the ethanol industry has licensed our patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction technologies. We believe that this amount will grow to at least 20% by the end of 2011." {Period ending 31 March - p24 Q1 (15May released)}
*********************
22 July . . .
"We have reduced debt by about another $7 million, transitioned to operating income, strengthened our patent portfolio, and won substantial new business during 2011. In total, we have executed licenses with about 15% of the ethanol industry, with execution of additional licenses expected during the second half of this year." (Friday's PR)
"About 10% of the ethanol industry has licensed our patented and patent-pending corn oil extraction technologies. We believe that this amount will grow to at least 20% by the end of 2011." {Period ending 31 March - p24 Q1 (15May released)}
*********************
22 July . . .
"We have reduced debt by about another $7 million, transitioned to operating income, strengthened our patent portfolio, and won substantial new business during 2011. In total, we have executed licenses with about 15% of the ethanol industry, with execution of additional licenses expected during the second half of this year." (Friday's PR)
******************
As you can see from the two posts above we have gained 5% of the total Ethanol Industry as customers sometime between March 31st and now. How did we get from 10% to 15% (UP 50%!) in less than 4 months? Only the Sunoco Deal was announced during that time frame, accounting for less than 1% of that 5% increase. Do we have +400M gallons of ethanol production licensed and under the radar? Even if we some of that additional increase is due to GPRE's know acquisitions or expansions - it looks like we have some licenses that have gone unannounced. If you have noticed, the ethanol plants like to know what the competition is doing, but they do not like to tell the competition what they are doing. GreenShift has to respect that. As a public company GreenShift has to open its books - but not its customer list. At least not yet. The 2Q should be interesting.
As you can see from the two posts above we have gained 5% of the total Ethanol Industry as customers sometime between March 31st and now. How did we get from 10% to 15% (UP 50%!) in less than 4 months? Only the Sunoco Deal was announced during that time frame, accounting for less than 1% of that 5% increase. Do we have +400M gallons of ethanol production licensed and under the radar? Even if we some of that additional increase is due to GPRE's know acquisitions or expansions - it looks like we have some licenses that have gone unannounced. If you have noticed, the ethanol plants like to know what the competition is doing, but they do not like to tell the competition what they are doing. GreenShift has to respect that. As a public company GreenShift has to open its books - but not its customer list. At least not yet. The 2Q should be interesting.
SkunK
Note: "The reverse split is expected to become effective during the latter half of the third quarter of 2011." I read that to say between 15 August - 30 September. The 2Q is due out 15 August. So I expect to see a release of new information in the 2Q first and then the R/S.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Golden Grain Update
Golden Grain has a non-patented COES and was last updated in March with its many troubles HERE.
22 July they made this interesting statement:
“At least for our system, it needed something in order to get the system to perform more as designed,” he says. (Chad Kuhler, chief operations officer of Golden Grain Energy LLC.)
To that point, they have some good news to report HERE about success using a chemical additive.
SkunK
22 July they made this interesting statement:
“At least for our system, it needed something in order to get the system to perform more as designed,” he says. (Chad Kuhler, chief operations officer of Golden Grain Energy LLC.)
To that point, they have some good news to report HERE about success using a chemical additive.
SkunK
Friday, July 22, 2011
GreenShift Announces Reverse Stock Split
GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB: GERS) today announced a 1 for 1,000 reverse stock split of its common stock.
"We have streamlined and improved our business over the past two years and we are a much different company today," said Kevin Kreisler, chief executive officer of GreenShift. "The time has come to do the same with our capital structure given recent progress in meeting our goals.
"We have reduced debt by about another $7 million, transitioned to operating income, strengthened our patent portfolio, and won substantial new business during 2011. In total, we have executed licenses with about 15% of the ethanol industry, with execution of additional licenses expected during the second half of this year. We have worked and will continue to work with our existing and new licensees to commence and maximize oil production this year, and we expect to be generating sufficient annualized sales by the end of this year to achieve profitability.
"Additional debt reduction and improvement of our balance sheet are among our previously-announced targets for the balance of this year. The reverse stock split is intended to facilitate realization of these objectives while positioning the company to take advantage of strategic growth and other opportunities as they materialize."
The reverse split is expected to become effective during the latter half of the third quarter of 2011. Every thousand shares of issued and outstanding GreenShift common stock will be automatically combined into one issued and outstanding share of common stock, without any change in the par value per share. This will reduce the number of outstanding shares of common stock from approximately 14 billion to about 14 million. GreenShift common stock will continue trading on the OTCQB under the symbol "GERS" but will trade under a new CUSIP number.
SEE HERE
GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB: GERS) today announced a 1 for 1,000 reverse stock split of its common stock.
"We have streamlined and improved our business over the past two years and we are a much different company today," said Kevin Kreisler, chief executive officer of GreenShift. "The time has come to do the same with our capital structure given recent progress in meeting our goals.
"We have reduced debt by about another $7 million, transitioned to operating income, strengthened our patent portfolio, and won substantial new business during 2011. In total, we have executed licenses with about 15% of the ethanol industry, with execution of additional licenses expected during the second half of this year. We have worked and will continue to work with our existing and new licensees to commence and maximize oil production this year, and we expect to be generating sufficient annualized sales by the end of this year to achieve profitability.
"Additional debt reduction and improvement of our balance sheet are among our previously-announced targets for the balance of this year. The reverse stock split is intended to facilitate realization of these objectives while positioning the company to take advantage of strategic growth and other opportunities as they materialize."
The reverse split is expected to become effective during the latter half of the third quarter of 2011. Every thousand shares of issued and outstanding GreenShift common stock will be automatically combined into one issued and outstanding share of common stock, without any change in the par value per share. This will reduce the number of outstanding shares of common stock from approximately 14 billion to about 14 million. GreenShift common stock will continue trading on the OTCQB under the symbol "GERS" but will trade under a new CUSIP number.
SEE HERE
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
New Idea?
Here is a "new" idea. Lets put a modular biodiesel plant right at the ethanol refinery. They can refine their extracted corn oil (and that of nearby plants) and sell it locally.
Here is an article with that "new" idea dated 17 July 2011
***************
Diversifying The Ethanol Industry With Biodiesel
"A new option for the ethanol industry to diversify is to add a biodiesel plant to the end of its corn oil extraction technology."
See HERE
***************
I am not saying that this is not a good idea. It is. But it is hardly new. Here is an article (From before the credit crunch) - nearly four years ago - that shows GreenShift's plan to do exactly the same thing. SEE HERE This was going to be the western demo.
They also had plans for an east coast setup at the Fulton NY ethanol plant (now Sunoco). That Ethanol plant with the original ownership went through bankruptcy due to construction issues.
If you wonder why GreenShift has patents covering continuous biodiesel production and a patent pending covering fuel mixing at the pump - this is why. Although the economy and survival and patent infringement litigation has forced a singular focus on COES - GreenShift from the start has seen their role as a total strategic solution. Not just corn oil extraction, but an increasingly energy self-sufficient corn belt.
SkunK
Here is an article with that "new" idea dated 17 July 2011
***************
Diversifying The Ethanol Industry With Biodiesel
"A new option for the ethanol industry to diversify is to add a biodiesel plant to the end of its corn oil extraction technology."
See HERE
***************
I am not saying that this is not a good idea. It is. But it is hardly new. Here is an article (From before the credit crunch) - nearly four years ago - that shows GreenShift's plan to do exactly the same thing. SEE HERE This was going to be the western demo.
They also had plans for an east coast setup at the Fulton NY ethanol plant (now Sunoco). That Ethanol plant with the original ownership went through bankruptcy due to construction issues.
If you wonder why GreenShift has patents covering continuous biodiesel production and a patent pending covering fuel mixing at the pump - this is why. Although the economy and survival and patent infringement litigation has forced a singular focus on COES - GreenShift from the start has seen their role as a total strategic solution. Not just corn oil extraction, but an increasingly energy self-sufficient corn belt.
SkunK
Monday, July 18, 2011
How the BioDiesel Industry sees it
Here is today's S-1 for RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, INC., a biodiesel producer. This is not about them. It is about how they look at corn oil extracted from ethanol production - called inedible corn oil here. The SkunK thinks their view is independent of us corn oil extractors - yet typical of BioDiesel producers - and therefore very relevant.
Traditional Feedstock too Expensive
Since 2009, we have principally used inedible animal fats, used cooking oil and inedible corn oil as our feedstocks for the production of biodiesel. Our decision to shift to these feedstocks resulted from the reduction in profit caused by a significant increase in soybean oil prices, which rose from $0.1435 per pound in February 2001 to $0.7040 per pound in March 2008, based on the closing nearby futures prices on the CBOT, and soybean oil having generally remained at high levels since that time.
Good Cloud Point
Our operating results are influenced by seasonal fluctuations in the price of biodiesel. Our sales tend to decrease during the winter season due to perceptions that biodiesel will not perform adequately in colder weather. Colder seasonal temperatures can cause the higher cloud point biodiesel we make from inedible animal fats to become cloudy and eventually gel at a higher temperature than petroleum-based diesel or lower cloud point biodiesel made from soybean, canola or inedible corn oil.
Some in competing fields may still dismiss corn oil extraction - but the biodiesel industry sees it as the answer!
While the commercial supply for inedible corn oil is growing as ethanol producers are installing corn oil extraction technology in their ethanol plants, it is not generally available in quantities sufficient to cover all our operations. At present, there are a limited number of ethanol plants with the equipment necessary to extract inedible corn oil that can be used in biodiesel production. If more ethanol plants do not acquire and utilize corn oil extraction equipment or if ethanol plants are idled, we may not be able to obtain additional amounts of inedible corn oil for use in our production of biodiesel and may be forced to utilize higher cost feedstocks to meet increased demand, which may not be economical.
Above quotes page 10 and 11
Safer and Cleaner
According to studies by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board, biodiesel reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 57% for biodiesel produced with soybean oil to 93% for biodiesel produced with inedible corn oil compared to petroleum-based diesel. Furthermore, biodiesel offers significant safety benefits over petroleum-based diesel because it is much less combustible, with a flash point greater than 260°F, compared to 125°F for petroleum-based diesel. Accordingly, pure biodiesel and blends of biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel are safer to store, handle and use than conventional petroleum-based diesel fuel. p.75
SEE HERE
SkunK
Traditional Feedstock too Expensive
Since 2009, we have principally used inedible animal fats, used cooking oil and inedible corn oil as our feedstocks for the production of biodiesel. Our decision to shift to these feedstocks resulted from the reduction in profit caused by a significant increase in soybean oil prices, which rose from $0.1435 per pound in February 2001 to $0.7040 per pound in March 2008, based on the closing nearby futures prices on the CBOT, and soybean oil having generally remained at high levels since that time.
Good Cloud Point
Our operating results are influenced by seasonal fluctuations in the price of biodiesel. Our sales tend to decrease during the winter season due to perceptions that biodiesel will not perform adequately in colder weather. Colder seasonal temperatures can cause the higher cloud point biodiesel we make from inedible animal fats to become cloudy and eventually gel at a higher temperature than petroleum-based diesel or lower cloud point biodiesel made from soybean, canola or inedible corn oil.
Some in competing fields may still dismiss corn oil extraction - but the biodiesel industry sees it as the answer!
While the commercial supply for inedible corn oil is growing as ethanol producers are installing corn oil extraction technology in their ethanol plants, it is not generally available in quantities sufficient to cover all our operations. At present, there are a limited number of ethanol plants with the equipment necessary to extract inedible corn oil that can be used in biodiesel production. If more ethanol plants do not acquire and utilize corn oil extraction equipment or if ethanol plants are idled, we may not be able to obtain additional amounts of inedible corn oil for use in our production of biodiesel and may be forced to utilize higher cost feedstocks to meet increased demand, which may not be economical.
Above quotes page 10 and 11
Safer and Cleaner
According to studies by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board, biodiesel reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 57% for biodiesel produced with soybean oil to 93% for biodiesel produced with inedible corn oil compared to petroleum-based diesel. Furthermore, biodiesel offers significant safety benefits over petroleum-based diesel because it is much less combustible, with a flash point greater than 260°F, compared to 125°F for petroleum-based diesel. Accordingly, pure biodiesel and blends of biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel are safer to store, handle and use than conventional petroleum-based diesel fuel. p.75
SEE HERE
SkunK
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Feel the Heat
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
"The Correction" Disappears
I was about to re-post the Mr. Winsness correction about the features of the disc stack design when I noticed ALL (three) posts had been removed from the Biodiesel magazine article.* Luckily "slash" had posted Mr. Winsness's correction in a comment section here on the blog. SkunK's non-technical sum up would be that the disc stack delivers about three times the g-force at one-third the horse power.
***************
David Winsness
2011-07-12
Our preference is the disc stack design for several reasons, one of which was incorrectly quoted above and correctly stated here. "A disc stack unit requires substantially LESS HORSEPOWER in this application than the ICM unit. Additionally, the disc stack unit generates substantially MORE G-Force. Our specified disc stack centrifuge units have a 60HP drive motor whereas the 3-phase decanters generally used by others (ICM) in this application have a 150HP Main Drive Motor PLUS a 30HP Back Drive motor (collectively about 180 HP when compared to the disc stack units at only 60 HP). The disc stack centrifuges used here produce about 7000 G's when compared to the others who generally produce less than 2500 G's and often less than 1800 G's." In an industry where efficiency is most important, I felt the need to correct the quote as soon as I became aware of it. The other reasons for our preference of a disc stack include:
1) better up time as our disc stacks are offered with a 99% guaranteed up-time which is better than any others have committed to.
2) reduced internal turbulence that allows oil to separate more easily (disc stack units have 'internal accelerators' that gently get the product up to speed before entry into the rotating centrifuge bowl).
Additionally, disc stack units do not have the internal augers that that the ICM units have and these augers create additional and unwanted turbulence that negatively impact separation.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding corn oil separation (dwinsness@greenshift.com). We are excited to have the pioneering technologies that enable ethanol plants to generate more fuel and income from the same kernel of corn.
Collectively, when considering today's commodity prices, deploying our portfolio of technologies within a dry mill ethanol plant could provide $0.70 of value per bushel of corn consumed. Regards, David Winsness GreenShift
*********************
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/7887/biodiesel-from-corn-oil-a-growing-force
*********************
SkunK
*Those posts also included "SkunK's Vent" and the post that partially trigged his vent.
***************
David Winsness
2011-07-12
Our preference is the disc stack design for several reasons, one of which was incorrectly quoted above and correctly stated here. "A disc stack unit requires substantially LESS HORSEPOWER in this application than the ICM unit. Additionally, the disc stack unit generates substantially MORE G-Force. Our specified disc stack centrifuge units have a 60HP drive motor whereas the 3-phase decanters generally used by others (ICM) in this application have a 150HP Main Drive Motor PLUS a 30HP Back Drive motor (collectively about 180 HP when compared to the disc stack units at only 60 HP). The disc stack centrifuges used here produce about 7000 G's when compared to the others who generally produce less than 2500 G's and often less than 1800 G's." In an industry where efficiency is most important, I felt the need to correct the quote as soon as I became aware of it. The other reasons for our preference of a disc stack include:
1) better up time as our disc stacks are offered with a 99% guaranteed up-time which is better than any others have committed to.
2) reduced internal turbulence that allows oil to separate more easily (disc stack units have 'internal accelerators' that gently get the product up to speed before entry into the rotating centrifuge bowl).
Additionally, disc stack units do not have the internal augers that that the ICM units have and these augers create additional and unwanted turbulence that negatively impact separation.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding corn oil separation (dwinsness@greenshift.com). We are excited to have the pioneering technologies that enable ethanol plants to generate more fuel and income from the same kernel of corn.
Collectively, when considering today's commodity prices, deploying our portfolio of technologies within a dry mill ethanol plant could provide $0.70 of value per bushel of corn consumed. Regards, David Winsness GreenShift
*********************
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/7887/biodiesel-from-corn-oil-a-growing-force
*********************
SkunK
*Those posts also included "SkunK's Vent" and the post that partially trigged his vent.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Creating Energy for Iowa and America
Here is a nice little updated (to me) corn oil and ddg portion of the Lincolnway Energy web site. The are one of the first litigants in the patent litigation. SEE here. They also have their newsletter on line - the newsletter link runs on the top of their site.
SkunK
SkunK
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Become Famous in SkunK Land
Here are many more pictures from the FEW conference. Happy to give anyone a shout out that can identify a GreenShift officer amongst the crowds. For that matter, any pictures are always welcome.!
SkunK
SkunK
Friday, July 8, 2011
SkunK Vents
If I were to have access to Texas sweet crude oil and started to refine it on my own, I suspect I would have many problems. Even though the refinement of crude oil is well documented and the results predictable, and even if I were trained in say - Ethanol Production - I would not only need the proper equipment, but the knowledge of one trained and experienced in that art. So . . .
No one would dream of refining ethanol - even with all the best equipment - with an entire crew of novices. The cost of building experience would be just too high.
Yet I have seen many posts (and filings) over the years that basically state corn oil extraction is simple, obvious and unpatentable. I believe it was Westfalia that compared it in one of their early filings to spinning cream off of milk - and by golly one doesn't need a patent for that!
Now it seems that all [or nearly all] of those who first argued against the patentability of corn oil extraction are pursuing their own patents.
My question to the industry is: "Those companies who said corn oil extraction was unpatentable when the pioneering patents were awarded - were they wrong then?" Or are they wrong to pursue peripheral patents now? Do they plan on enforcing any patents rights that might be awarded to them? Or are they just tinkering?
If it is so simple to extract corn oil for biodiesel, then why are there reports of those who use copies of others operating manuals and those who have reportedly attempted to reverse design other's equipment, still having so much trouble? Are efforts to extract corn oil being done with the best proven equipment and with the help of those who invented the art? Or is it being done with the same trial and error I would expect if I started to refine my own crude oil [or corn oil] in my garage?
I suspect if one still experiences high yield losses that make corn oil unprofitable as a biodiesel feed stock, then one is lacking either the best equipment or the best experienced - or both.
SkunK
PS. Do not get me wrong. I am NOT bad mouthing tinkering in one's garage! I do it all the time and it is great fun. I recently put an eight foot oak bar in my garage office that can manually dispense various forms of low grade Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption. Much to my surprise and the delight of my guests - it occasionally expands the tinkering thought process. However, I do not encourage tinkering at work - especially if one works at an ethanol chemical refinery. Merely tinkering with corn oil extraction can be an expensive process - one in which the stakeholders of the ethanol plant should not have to finance - regardless of how fun the on-the-clock tinker-ers find it.
No one would dream of refining ethanol - even with all the best equipment - with an entire crew of novices. The cost of building experience would be just too high.
Yet I have seen many posts (and filings) over the years that basically state corn oil extraction is simple, obvious and unpatentable. I believe it was Westfalia that compared it in one of their early filings to spinning cream off of milk - and by golly one doesn't need a patent for that!
Now it seems that all [or nearly all] of those who first argued against the patentability of corn oil extraction are pursuing their own patents.
My question to the industry is: "Those companies who said corn oil extraction was unpatentable when the pioneering patents were awarded - were they wrong then?" Or are they wrong to pursue peripheral patents now? Do they plan on enforcing any patents rights that might be awarded to them? Or are they just tinkering?
If it is so simple to extract corn oil for biodiesel, then why are there reports of those who use copies of others operating manuals and those who have reportedly attempted to reverse design other's equipment, still having so much trouble? Are efforts to extract corn oil being done with the best proven equipment and with the help of those who invented the art? Or is it being done with the same trial and error I would expect if I started to refine my own crude oil [or corn oil] in my garage?
I suspect if one still experiences high yield losses that make corn oil unprofitable as a biodiesel feed stock, then one is lacking either the best equipment or the best experienced - or both.
SkunK
PS. Do not get me wrong. I am NOT bad mouthing tinkering in one's garage! I do it all the time and it is great fun. I recently put an eight foot oak bar in my garage office that can manually dispense various forms of low grade Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption. Much to my surprise and the delight of my guests - it occasionally expands the tinkering thought process. However, I do not encourage tinkering at work - especially if one works at an ethanol chemical refinery. Merely tinkering with corn oil extraction can be an expensive process - one in which the stakeholders of the ethanol plant should not have to finance - regardless of how fun the on-the-clock tinker-ers find it.
Preliminary Injunction
We had learned in earlier filings GreenShift had dropped its request for a Preliminary Injunction against the accused patent infringers. The court has so ordered.
See Here
SkunK
One can guess that GreenShift dropped its request for an injunction for a number of reasons, but I think we can only safely say that GreenShift believes it to be in the company's best interest to do so. Originally, a preliminary injunction could have served as a deterrent to infringement. Granted now, it would mostly just stop corn oil production.
Strategy
If we assume a position of GreenShift strength, and any settlement or award to be based on corn oil production at infringing facilities, then continued production at those facilities may be in GreenShift's best interest at this point. This may be a strategical move to increase the size of the pie and all its portions.
Tactics
A less dramatic case could be made that since GreenShift has lately signed many new plants for their patented corn oil production, it would be harder to meet the extreme burden of injury (that cannot be later made whole by an award) required for a preliminary injunction. It may be simply a tactical call to use their legal assets more productively.
See Here
SkunK
One can guess that GreenShift dropped its request for an injunction for a number of reasons, but I think we can only safely say that GreenShift believes it to be in the company's best interest to do so. Originally, a preliminary injunction could have served as a deterrent to infringement. Granted now, it would mostly just stop corn oil production.
Strategy
If we assume a position of GreenShift strength, and any settlement or award to be based on corn oil production at infringing facilities, then continued production at those facilities may be in GreenShift's best interest at this point. This may be a strategical move to increase the size of the pie and all its portions.
Tactics
A less dramatic case could be made that since GreenShift has lately signed many new plants for their patented corn oil production, it would be harder to meet the extreme burden of injury (that cannot be later made whole by an award) required for a preliminary injunction. It may be simply a tactical call to use their legal assets more productively.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
As Expected - Great Article!
Despite ongoing patent infringement litigation, Greenshift Corp.’s Chief Technology Officer David Winsness shared the stage with Brock Beach, capital sales manager for oil separation solutions for ICM Inc., one of several litigants in the lawsuit, where the two answered audience questions about their companies’ differing oil extraction methods.
SEE Entire ARTICLE HERE
SkunK
Here is that patent pending on blending of which Dave Winsness speaks.
SEE Entire ARTICLE HERE
SkunK
Here is that patent pending on blending of which Dave Winsness speaks.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Heads Up
Ron Kotrba is the editor of Biodiesel Magazine and Biorefining Magazine. He recently moderated the FEW conference "Positioning for Corn Oil-to-Biodiesel Plays" in which GreenShift CEO Kevin Kreisler took part. I emailed him and (encouraged &) asked if he planned to cover that event in a future blog. He replied that he is working on that story now and we should see something early this week. When that article comes out one should see it posted here and/or here - [On that second link look half way down the right column.]
SkunK
Un-re-la-ted note: With Internet media - reader interest is measured in hits to the site, length of stay and an (very occasional only) interest click on the advertising presented. I encourage all who would like to see more GreenShift and Corn Oil Extraction coverage in independent media to keep that in mind when they see coverage they want to see more of. -
SkunK
Un-re-la-ted note: With Internet media - reader interest is measured in hits to the site, length of stay and an (very occasional only) interest click on the advertising presented. I encourage all who would like to see more GreenShift and Corn Oil Extraction coverage in independent media to keep that in mind when they see coverage they want to see more of. -
Sunday, July 3, 2011
FEW Pictures
Here are some pictures (94) of the FEW conference from AgWired. No GreenShift spotted in the crowds, however you might enjoy the ICM bubblegum machine. SEE HERE
SkunK
Fuel Ethanol Conference was held 27-30 June 2011. Both Dave Winsness (CTO) and Kevin Kreisler (CEO) were scheduled to present.
NOTE to anon: Last year the 2Q and 3Q came out on 23 Aug and 22 Nov respectively. I expect them to trend closer to the 15th of those same months this year. BEST SEC LINK
SkunK
Fuel Ethanol Conference was held 27-30 June 2011. Both Dave Winsness (CTO) and Kevin Kreisler (CEO) were scheduled to present.
NOTE to anon: Last year the 2Q and 3Q came out on 23 Aug and 22 Nov respectively. I expect them to trend closer to the 15th of those same months this year. BEST SEC LINK
Friday, July 1, 2011
The Defendants are Desperate
The following is the start of GreenShift's reply to the defendants Claim Construction and is dated 1 July:
"The Defendants are desperate. Their claim construction arguments (which severely and improperly limit the scope of the claims) lack common sense and are based on distortions of the record, combining unrelated cherry picked phrases from the specification and prosecution history of the '858 Patent, and an incorrect - at best - application of the law.
The reason for Defendants' desperation (and resulting reason for these tortured claim constructions) is made clear in the final sentence of their claim constriction brief. (Defendants' Joint, with the Exception of Adkins Energy, LLC, Claim Construction Brief Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, Dkt. # 120 (Defendant's Br.”) at 27). It is because they infringe the claims of the '858 Patent if the claims are not severely limited as they propose."
See Entire Document HERE
SkunK
"The Defendants are desperate. Their claim construction arguments (which severely and improperly limit the scope of the claims) lack common sense and are based on distortions of the record, combining unrelated cherry picked phrases from the specification and prosecution history of the '858 Patent, and an incorrect - at best - application of the law.
The reason for Defendants' desperation (and resulting reason for these tortured claim constructions) is made clear in the final sentence of their claim constriction brief. (Defendants' Joint, with the Exception of Adkins Energy, LLC, Claim Construction Brief Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, Dkt. # 120 (Defendant's Br.”) at 27). It is because they infringe the claims of the '858 Patent if the claims are not severely limited as they propose."
See Entire Document HERE
SkunK
GreenShift Advances!
GreenShift advances in corn oil extraction patent wars
In Georgia, Greenshift has been issued a second notice of allowance for patent application number 12/559,136, titled “Method of Recovering Oil From Thin Stillage”. GreenShift made this request to strengthen their legal position vis-à-vis their current patent infringement litigation, including ICM, Flottwegg, and Westfalia in support of their invalidity arguments. The USPTO issued the new notice of allowance for the ‘136 Patent Application in spite of everything raised by each and every defendant, including ICM.
See Short Article in BioFuels Digest HERE
SkunK
PS The FEW Conference was this past week. Both the CTO Dave Winsness - and the CEO Kevin Kreisler were scheduled to give presentations. Anyone here able to attend? Appreciate any insights, thanks SkunK
In Georgia, Greenshift has been issued a second notice of allowance for patent application number 12/559,136, titled “Method of Recovering Oil From Thin Stillage”. GreenShift made this request to strengthen their legal position vis-à-vis their current patent infringement litigation, including ICM, Flottwegg, and Westfalia in support of their invalidity arguments. The USPTO issued the new notice of allowance for the ‘136 Patent Application in spite of everything raised by each and every defendant, including ICM.
See Short Article in BioFuels Digest HERE
SkunK
PS The FEW Conference was this past week. Both the CTO Dave Winsness - and the CEO Kevin Kreisler were scheduled to give presentations. Anyone here able to attend? Appreciate any insights, thanks SkunK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
