Tuesday's OTC Top Gainers: OTC: GERS

GreenShift Corporation (OTC:GERS) shares soared 0.0001 (100.00%)to $0.0002 with more than 82.49 shares trading hands.  SEE HERE

SkunK

OK, who is gonna figure what % of our OS is 82 shares, lol?  See it is close to 1,000 traded now.  No one is selling ones and no one is buying twos is my best obvious guess for the low/no volume day so far.  If you assume only YAGI or MIF would sell at one, then no "ones" for sale is what you would expect if dilution dried up.  Remember that these debt holders can accumulate up to 5% of OS so even if the company stopped paying in stock a month ago, it would take a while for each of those debt holders to sell through their 5%.  Is this what has finally happened? - or just a SkunK wish?  Only time will tell, since no one who knows is talking.  If no one will sell at one it will eventually force buyers expectations to two.  I checked Pacer filings a little earlier and nothing to report.  Guessing this log jam will break free soon?

Heavily Traded Stocks to Watch at OTCBB – (AAVG, JUNP, GERS)

SEE HERE

SkunK

New United Ethanol Newsletter

Here are some SkunK-selected excerpts:

"Corn oil has also been in high demand by the biodiesel producers due to its relative cost versus soybean oil."

"The rest of the summer is sure to be a continuous challenge as we battle the effects of slow economic
growth, currency fluctuations, and weather problems, but United Ethanol is running smoothly in all of our production phases: ethanol, DDG, and corn oil."

Through the first half of 2011, United Ethanol produced 21,740,884 gallons of undenatured ethanol. We also produced 61,662 tons of DDG, 3,954 tons of wet distiller’s grain, 25,411 tons of liquefied carbon dioxide, and extracted 3,275,510 pounds of corn oil.

"United Ethanol has also recently added new piping which allows us to inject acid and lower the pH of the syrup going to the corn-oil extraction system. We have found that lowering the pH increases our corn-oil production."
SEE ALL HERE

SkunK

I checked this site in the morning - nothing.  So this is hot off the press!  #3,275,510 is  #6,551,020 on an annual basis.  This is about .862mmgy/year. 

One Example - 17 October?

Here is an example of a Markman hearing in a patent case held by Judge Larry J. McKinney - the same judge in the GreenShift patent case.  Google and I selected it at random - I have no reason to think it is not a good example of what to expect in this case. 

The Markman hearing was held on 2 August 2005 and the Order on Claim Construction was released on 26 September 2005.  The actual transcript of the Markman hearing was released on 8 December of the same year.  Another Markman date was set for December of 2006, but was never held because the case was settled out of court in July of 2006.

SEE HERE
SkunK

PS  If this case roughly follows the same time schedule as my example, we should see a release on the "Order of Claim Construction" on this case in about 8 weeks - or about 17 October 2011.  I suspect that the judge officially or otherwise gagged both parties - While we wait it would shock me to see any information released by either party on any Markman related subject.

An Additive Presentation

This presentation was given at the Fuel Ethanol Workshop and Expo in 2011 and provides an overview of corn oil extraction optimization.  (NALCO - an additive to support corn oil extraction)

See Here (Once at the link, move down to see presentation)

SkunK

ICM Invents new Technology - Again!

In March of 2011 ICM invented a new renewable source of energy - SEE HERE

According to the article:

"Bert Bennett, Ph.D., the project’s principal scientist, compared the gasifier process to lighting a fire in the fireplace. Heat is generated, and the fuel (in this case, wood) is turned to ash.  However, in the gasifier, waste is burned, but the process is stopped halfway. Instead of letting it turn to ash, the trash is converted to synthetic gas, which can be used to generate power in industrial and commercial settings.

The design is unique to ICM."

**************************************

 

In a completely unrelated note, one we do not cover much here,  due to the emphasis on COES - However, GreenShift owns 10% of ZeroPoint CleanTech Inc.

 
"In March 2007 ZeroPoint Clean Tech, Inc. successfully commissioned its first commercial scale biomass gasification system."  See last article HERE  
Here are four patents that ZeroPoint Clean Tech owns covering their biomass gasification and other systems.  Here are four listed ZeroPoint patent applications.
 
I certainly do not know nor would I suggest that anyones "new renewable source of energy" infringes ZeroPoint's (or anyone elses) patents.   Before I invested in anything like this however, I would research the patent issue thoughly.  Taking the word of a business that can profit from your decision does not seem to be enough today.  Judging by the issued ZeroPoint Patents and the commercial sales made by ZeroPoint, "Biomass Gasification Technology" is hardly new.  In fact Wikipedia claims a 180 year history - with 9 million vehicles [See cool old car picture above] running on the process by the end of the Second World War. 
 
Anyway, as we await the results of the Markman Hearing I thought I would give you something.  Was this subject off topic?  Or right on?  You decide.
 
SkunK

Will Demand meet Increasing Supply?

So where is all this industry-wide corn oil to biodiesel production going to go?  Here is an answer.
SkunK

These High Volume Penny Stocks are Hot

"Greenshift Corp (OTCBB: GERS) last closed at 0.0001, down 0.0001 (-50.00%) with volume of 11,875,930. Look for a bounce on Monday."

SEE Article HERE

SkunK

Game on

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance [Dkt. 127], Defendants’ Response in Opposition [Dkts. 128 and 129] and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Continuance [Dkts. 131 and 132], the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance.

It is so ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2011.
See Here

SkunK

Markman Hearing will go as scheduled - 9:30 am, 22 August 2011 - this Monday.

BioDiesel Plants on Site to Utilize Corn Oil

The federal government intends to jump-start the fledgling biofuels industry in the name of national security.

Another potential beneficiary is JetE of St. Paul, which is trying to commercialize a catalytic technology to produce jet fuel and biodiesel from waste oils. The company wants to build plants, costing about $80 million, with a capacity of 30 million gallons of jet fuel and biodiesel per year. Those plants could be built next to existing ethanol plants to utilize their byproduct corn oil, said Luca Zullo, a technology consultant for JetE. "The goal is to integrate this technology into the existing ethanol infrastructure."

SEE HERE from the Star Tribune

SkunK
Thanks to Nobody12378 in prior comment section for pointing this one out!

GreenShift Answers

You read what the SkunK thought about the majority defendants' response to GreenShift's recent filing.  Now GreenShift answers.  Here are some SkunK selected excerpts of the NEW GreenShift Response to the majority filing.  You are invited to use the links below to read the entire filings.

"Contrary to Defendants’ vitriol and assertions of bad faith, Plaintiffs’ proposed continuance reflects a common sense and practical plan to construe related patents together rather than in a wasteful, duplicative, piecemeal approach.

Defendants’ hyperbole is unhelpful and unfortunate.  Defendants know full well that CleanTech had to submit various types of references to the USPTO to comply with its Rule 56 duty of candor. 37 CFR § 1.56. Defendants themselves sent certain patent references, including arguments relating to Prevost, to CleanTech’s counsel who then had to submit these references for consideration by the USPTO. According to USPTO rules, litigation material, such as invalidity contentions, must also be submitted for consideration.

In order for newly submitted art to be considered, the USPTO rules and regulations required CleanTech to withdraw the application from issue and place the application back into examination.

Here, Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiffs to delay issuance. Defendants engaged in heads-I-win, tails-you-lose conduct. Either the USPTO would invalidate an allowed claim based on the newly submitted art, or, at the very least, the date the patent would issue would be further delayed, thereby eating away at the effective term of the patent. On the other hand, if Plaintiffs failed to disclose the information to the USPTO, Defendants had a manufactured inequitable conduct claim. Defendants win either way."
See GERS Reply to Majority Here
********************************
Here are some excerpts to the Reply to Iroquois:

Iroquois’ arguments are both incorrect and misplaced. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected the very arguments Iroquois now makes.

Iroquois is not only wrong on the law, it misconstrues Plaintiffs’ position. CleanTech respectfully submits it is more efficient, and more likely to ensure consistent claim interpretation, if claims dealing with similar subject matter are construed at the same time.
See GERS  Reply to Iroquois
******************************
Happy Reading,
SkunK

ps Bonus link Here

Prevost 20040087808

The SkunK has often wondered what is the heart of the defendant's case about prior art.  What "thing" do they point to that shows the GreenShift patents are obvious and therefore invalid?  In their last filing they finally showed their hole card.  My question?  Is it an Ace or a deuce?

After reading their filing it appears to me, without a doubt, that they have bet their farm (businesses?) on Prevost Application 20040087808.   Here are their quotes - twice calling it "MOST IMPORTANT":

"Most important,* construction of the ‘858 patent will expose Plaintiffs’ failure to explain how the ‘858 patent claims differentiate from the clear teaching of Prevost U.S. Patent Application Publication No.US2004/0087808 (“Prevost”) to obtain oil from concentrated thin stillage by centrifugation." [p. 2]

"Most important* the claim construction analysis that Plaintiffs have dodged, both publicly and before this Court, will require Plaintiffs to explain to this Court how the methods for corn oil recovery claimed in the ‘858 patent can be as broad as Plaintiffs’ rhetoric asserts when the exact same method is completely and identically* disclosed in one prior art reference, namely, Prevost. A substantive evaluation and resolution of the ‘858 patent claims, in view of an express disclosure in Prevost to recover oil from concentrated thin stillage using a centrifuge, is long overdue." [p. 4-5]

Now the SkunK, having had a spam job offer just today to be a Patent Attorney, might give you some reasons why he thinks this is a weak defendant position.  Instead I will cite the GreenShift argument to this EXACT point. 

The argument the defendants say they are anxiously waiting for was already made by GreenShift - in detail - back in April of 2010.  Now if the Skunk, unshaven and half-in-the bag, can find this prior argument from a year and a half ago, that the defendants appear unaware of, don't they think a sober, well groomed, good looking judge could find it as well?  How they gonna explain that?  Good Golly!

Here is a small portion of the GreenShift argument:

"Cardinal's obviousness argument is premised heavily on the Prevost reference, which was the primary reference at issue during the prosecution of the '858 patent. As was discussed at length during the prosecution, Prevost discloses performing an oil removal step by introducing thin stillage into a centrifuge before it has been evaporated/concentrated, whereas after evaporation/concentration, Prevost discloses solvent extraction as the oil removal process. (Ex. M, pp. 100 & 130). Cardinal describes two other references (i.e. US 5,250,182, Cardinal Ex. U and the South Dakota State University reference, Cardinal Ex. T), each of which discloses the solids concentration of thin stillage (before it has been evaporated or concentrated) to be up to 15% by weight and anywhere from 5-10%, respectively. (Opposition, p. 17). Using the solids concentrations, Cardinal then calculates the moisture content of the disclosed thin stillage to be "as low as 85 % by weight" and "between 90-95% moisture by weight," respectively. (Id.) Cobbling these references together, Cardinal then posits3 that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine Prevost with either the '182 patent or the South Dakota State University reference and thus introduce the thin stillage (before it has evaporated or concentrated, and with a high enough solids content to place the moisture content within the range of greater than 30% by weight and less than 90%) into a centrifuge for oil extraction. (Id.)" [p.8]

SEE ENTIRE FILING HERE

Now how can the defendants argue that Prevost is the "exact same method"????? The Patent office did not skip over it - it was the "primary reference at issue".  It uses solvent extraction for heavens sake!!! *  The Prevost method also goes to a centrifuge before* it is evaporated/concentrated.
***************
b. The problem solved by the '858 patent
One of the keys to CleanTech's invention - a point entirely missed by Cardinal - is the advantage of introducing thin stillage into the centrifuge after the thin stillage has been evaporated or concentrated by the removal of water content (i.e. moisture).  [p.9]
*****************
GLTA
SkunK

*I just cannot believe the defendants ARE betting the farm on Prevost?

SkunK gets Job offer as Patent Attorney

Well, sort of.
After his critique of the defendants recent filings SkunK received this email from Heather Madison:

"Hey there,

I'm reaching out to you because Thumbtack is getting a lot of job leads for patent attorneys, and I'm looking for another patent attorney who is interested in taking on more clients.

After checking out your website I think you are a great fit for Thumbtack and I'd love to start sending you job leads. Please fill out a few details about your skills and rates, and I'll start forwarding you potential new clients.

If you have any questions about what Thumbtack can provide, please don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks,

Heather"

Breaking into this Patent Lawyer-ing field isn't nearly as hard as I thought!  Well that explains a lot!  Thanks, Heather, but I have spent most of my adult life trying to stay out of a suit and tie, and I would guess that is a prerequisite for such employment.  Thanks for the knee-slapper spam to start the day.

SkunK

Defendents Respond

Defendants respond below to GreenShift request for Markman reschedule.  Although I did sense an abundance of emotion, I did not see a single legal precedence cited in this long brief.  I almost wondered out loud if the intended audience is the judge or the Ethanol Industry?  GreenShift has been winning the marketplace recently.  I am new to this legal stuff, but I had got used to seeing legal precedence cited to support the legal positions taken in these legal briefs. 

See Here

Iroquois filed a separate brief.  It is shorter, unemotional and has legal precedence cited.  Iroquois' decision to file separately is curious.  I wonder if Iroquois decided to file separately so they could write a more traditional reply to the court. 

See Here

SkunK

Thats my opinion above and I would be interested in reading your thoughts in the comments below.  Thanks

Most Active

GreenShift Corporation (OTC:GERS) declared today its completing of a license agreement with Advanced BioEnergy LLC and the winning commissioning of GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction technology at Advanced BioEnergy’s 110 million gallon a year ethanol plant in Fairmont, Nebraska.


SEE HERE

SkunK

Advanced BioEnergy

GreenShift and Advanced BioEnergy Enter into License and Installation Agreement

Richard Peterson, CEO of Advanced BioEnergy LLC, said that "We did extensive research to determine the best system to install at our plants. After visiting and speaking to other plant operators it was clear that the GreenShift design is the highest yielding system with minimal down time. Today, we are pleased to announce that the extraction system was installed and successfully commissioned in August and we are consistently extracting our desired yield without use of chemical additives.

SEE HERE

Skunk

The Simple Case for Infringment

I am not a lot of things, and I certainly ain't no lawyer.  Since we have some new faces around let me put out a simple case for infringement.  Perhaps simple evidence will not impress all the esquires out there.  But if this goes to trial, jurors have a long history of being impressed with evidence.

1.  Dave Winsness entire Statement Here

Trouble reading segment click here

Well if this Dave Winsness statement is true it certainly does sound like a clear case of infringement.  You sign an agreement not to disclose a patent pending technology so that you can have access to that technology.  You sign an agreement not to disclose that same patent pending technology to anyone else.  You then purchase two of the inventions and gain access to the patent pending technologies and soon afterwards you begin to sell unauthorized corn oil extraction systems to ethanol manufacturers. 

Hmmmm, it seems ICM would have to dis-prove a portion of this Winsness statement in order to sway a jury that this is not a clear case of infringement.  In the SkunK's opinion the central point is "Did ICM purchase two of the patent pending inventions from the inventors?  If that is true, then we can by definition deduct that the inventors ". . , disclosed the extraction technology to a company called ICM, inc." After all how can one hand over the invention without disclosing the technology? 

We can also assume with great probability that ICM signed a non-closure agreement before they received any patent pending technology - certainly a common event - one that precludes nearly any transfer of technology, and certainly if the disclosure is patent pending.  Importantly I have not seen where ICM denies having signed a non-disclosure agreement.  (In any case, even if one were to assume they did not sign a non-disclosure agreement, that still does not allow them to infringe a patent.)

The final point is whether ICM sells ". . . corn oil extraction systems to ethanol manufacturers."  That statement is certainly self evident if you visit the ICM web site  or look at their ads.  Although tricanter sales seem to have stalled lately, it is not for lack of trying.

So in the SkunK's opinion, if one can prove that ICM purchased the two units from the inventors, then the other three points in this central Winsness statement can basically stand on their own.

How could the SkunK prove such a thing.  Well lets start by listening to what ICM said before all this started.  After all, if ICM admits to buying the units as Dave Winsness states, it would be hard for them to deny it now.  All we have to go back to June of 2005 when the sale of these two COES were announced:

"ICM Inc. is installing centrifuge technology provided by Vortex Dehydration Systems LLC in two of ICM's 40-mmgy plants, according to ICM Director of Plant Services Cheri Loest. She said the skid-unit technology intercepts the thin stillage stream before it enters the evaporator and removes corn oil. General Manager Dave Kramer told EPM he intends to implement the Vortex centrifuge in Sterling Ethanol, a 40-mmgy Colorado ethanol plant that recently broke ground." p 31 Ethanol Producer Magazine June 2005 SEE HERE

If you are familiar with the history of the inventors you know that:

"Prior to joining GreenShift, Mr. Winsness served as chief technology officer and eventually chief executive officer of Vortex Dehydration Technology. . . " SEE HERE

SkunK

Now the SkunK has been around the block and realizes this case may revolve more around who's high school physics handbook we derive the definition of "heat" from, rather than this simple SkunK evidence.  I can just see the patent lawyers saying  "What the heck does ICM buying  a couple COES in 2005 from the inventors have to do with this patent case?   Just the same, if this goes to a jury - jurors will be impressed with this red-handed evidence..

Two Patents on the 30th

You already know GreenShift ‘231 Application will issue on August 30, 2011 as U.S. Pat. No. 8,008,516 (“the ‘516 Patent”) because you read Friday's blog.  

Now another SkunK exclusive - I found this in the patent public pair portal tonight.  Application 12/559,136 will issue on August 30, 2011 as U.S. Pat. No.8008517.  This along with the '516 patent will make the 3rd and 4th issued GreenShift Corn Oil Extraction patents.

SEE HERE

SkunK

Markman Hearing

GreenShift requests the Markman hearing be moved to mid-October.  Here are some SkunK excerpts to give you a flavor of why.  Link for entire filing is at the end of blog.
**************
On August 10, 2011, the USPTO indicated that the ‘231 Application will issue on August 30, 2011 as U.S. Pat. No. 8,008,516 (“the ‘516 Patent”). CleanTech will seek to add the ‘516 patent to the instant lawsuit once the patent issues on August 30, 2011. The requested continuance is necessary to allow the patent application to issue and to supplement the Markman briefing.

If the continuance is not granted, after the ‘231 Application issues as a patent, CleanTech will be required to initiate new litigation against the Defendants and proceed through the MDL process to consolidate the individual cases with or without the instant MDL matter. This process is likely to take six months or more.

On August 9, the Defendants responded that they do not consent to the continuance.

Clearly, interpreting these related patents at the same time is the most efficient way to accomplish the correct claim construction.

Defendants are well aware of CleanTech’s allowed patent application. CleanTech’s patent application was previously allowed by the USPTO. However, as a result of prior art and invalidity contentions sent by Defendants and other third parties, CleanTech withdrew the allowed patent application from issue in order to submit the alleged invalidating art to the USPTO. The allowed patent application has survived the submission of the prior art and is now poised for issuance. Given their awareness of CleanTech’s patent application, and that any delay in the issuance was at least partially due to their actions, Defendants will not be prejudiced by a delay in the scheduled Markman hearing.
****************
SEE Entire 9 page filing Here

SkunK

For all you Gippers out there who live by the expression - trust but verify - here is another SkunK exclusive.  This is the 10 August USPTO notification to GreenShift.  SEE HERE (click to enlarge)
To get you ready for NFL color analysis, I circled the application number, checked the proposed application date and twice arrowed the "proposed new patent number".

Advanced!

Another Potential Customer?  This is ADVANCED BioFuel Energy LLC - Not "Biofuel Energy Corp" - the focus of recent blogs:

"We are also improving the rail facilities at the Huron plant location, and adding corn oil extraction technology to our Fairmont facility which is expected to be operational before September 30, 2011."


SEE HERE
 
SkunK

Besides the closeness of name - Advanced BioFuel Energy LLC and BioFuel Energy Corp, they also both have a "Fairmont facility".  Advanced's is in Nebraska and BioFuel Energy's is in Minnesota.  Don't believe in coincidences?  Believe.

Competition or Convert??

HOMELAND ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC

"On June 24, 2011, the Company entered into a contract for construction of corn oil separation equipment with a general contractor. The contract amount is not to exceed $2.4 million with an estimated completion date of September 2011."  p.11

See Here
SkunK

Customer!

From the Biofuel Energy conference call:

"We are planning to install corn oil extraction units at each plant and expect to have these units online by the end of year.  This will follow the traditional startup and debottlenecking process.  We plan to realize the benefits of this investment beginning in the 1st Quarter of 2012.  We are excited by the potential revenues that we expect to derive from this additional co-product.  Our plans are to license GreenShift technology as a platform for these systems. We have secured the major equipment and are currently finalizing the requisite financing, technology and installation agreements to support the schedule I just mentioned."

SkunK

Welcome aboard Biofuel Energy!

Customer?

Biofuel Energy just had a negative quarter.  They are now geting Corn oil Extraction. 

Operationally we remain on track with several planned improvements, the most significant being implementing corn oil extraction at our plants. These will be discussed further on our conference call."
SEE HERE

SkunK

PS  The Company plans to host a conference call on Friday, August 12, 2011, beginning at 11:00 a.m. (EDT) to discuss the results. To participate, please dial (800) 944-8766. The participant code for the call is 91005. This call will be available for phone playback for 30 days by dialing (866) 281-6782. The access code for the replay is 166976.


Business Summary.
BioFuel Energy Corporation is engaged in the production and sale of ethanol and its co-products through its two ethanol production facilities located in Wood River, Nebraska and Fairmont, Minnesota.

Great Article!

"A hearing has been set for Aug. 22 in a patent litigation case. GreenShift Corp. will face its defendants and counterclaimants in the consolidated case in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana before Judge Larry McKinney."
**********
"Also being sued are ICM Inc., GEA Westfalia Separator Inc., GEA Mechanical and Flottweg Separation Technology Inc. GreenShift has also named Dave Vander Griend, president and CEO of ICM, personally, and is considering infringement suits against additional companies, Kevin Kreisler of GreenShift told EPM."
**********
". . , GreenShift said any feeling that its patents would be declared invalid is misguided. So too, it said, are offers of indemnity. “Such offers irresponsibly imply the ability to pay damages that continue to accrue against infringing plants. These plants are taking a dramatic risk that an indemnitor is able to repay all damages assessed by the court against each infringing plant that has been indemnified.”

SEE HERE

SkunK

If you read this blog - all this news is old news.  But it is great to see this information getting out to the industry as a whole and to see a major ethanol industry news source cover this important news story with some detail.  You cannot look at your major advertisers for signals about what to cover and how to cover it. Oops! Did I write that out loud?

Vol. Stocks

see here
SkunK

The Second Read

"We generate revenue by licensing our technologies to ethanol producers in exchange for ongoing royalty and other license fees. Several plants were licensed to use our technologies as of the end of 2010 and during the second quarter of 2011."
****************
"As of August 8, 2011, there were 13,903,397,418 shares of common stock outstanding." (2Q)

If you look at the  ". . . close of business on July 19, 2011 (the “Record Date”)"  contained in both the Pre and Def 14c you will see the OS was also 13,903,397,418 shares.

Since the OS did not change, I think one can safely say that no dilution took place between those dates.   Any post made between those dates describing ongoing dilution would therefore - by definition - be inaccurate. 
SkunK

R/S On or after September 6

On or after September 6, 2011, the amendment of the articles of incorporation will be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and will become effective.

SEE HERE
SkunK

Adrian Echos, echos

See Here

SkunK

NEVER Seen It this Early

2Q is OUT!!

******************

As of June 30, 2011, the Company had $1,407,149 in cash, . .

Revenue in future periods can be expected to increase sequentially at least until the second quarter of 2012 as all of our existing licensees commence and achieve full production.  

. . . we earned performance bonuses from YA Corn Oil in the amount of about $4.9 million which are included in revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2011.

 **********************

Plan of Operations

Our business continues to improve. We won significant new business during the first half of 2011, increasing licensed penetration to 15% of the industry and nearly doubling the amount of production licensed to use our extraction technologies from 1.0 billion gallons per year (“BGY”) at the end of 2010 to more than about 1.9 BGY of ethanol production today. We produced about $1.3 million in operating income during the first two quarters of 2011 (excluding the impact of one-time performance bonuses), up from about $2.4 million in operating losses incurred during the first two quarters of 2010. We reduced our debt to YA Global and its affiliates by about $7 million to about $26 million, down about 21% from the balance due at the start of 2011.

After extensive third party due diligence and review, we were awarded contracts to design, build and install extraction systems for our licensees, including a state of the art new corn oil recovery facility for Sunoco, Inc. We received notification from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during 2011 of new patent allowances that we believe substantially strengthen our issued patents and ability to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees. And, we expanded our technology portfolio by filing new patent applications and pressing forward with new developments designed to further enhance the profitability of our licensees.

Our goals for the balance of 2011 are to work with our licensees to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of recovering corn oil; increase our licensed penetration to facilities producing a total of 2.3 BGY of ethanol; reduce debt by a total of 33% during 2011; generate material positive cash flow from operations and operating income; and to continue to improve upon our technologies serving the ethanol industry. We expect that realization of each of these goals will enable us to begin repaying our remaining debt out of cash flow by the end of this year. Achieving this milestone is a key objective for 2011.

SEE HERE

SkunK

Notable Stocks - GERS

See HERE

SkunK

Stock to Watch: GERS

GERS and MMTC are the Stocks to Watch for August 8th from OTCPicks.com

See Here

OTCBB Hot Stocks to Watch:  GreenShift
SEE Here

SkunK

Momentum Hunter - GERS

Today MomentumHunter.com announces eight stocks to watch closely:
SEE Here

SkunK

The Supremes

In the most recent PR here, we have this nugget that seemed to warrant more research:

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 SkunK decided that he would see what those who do not have anything to do with the GreenShift litigation thought about this ruling.

Background of the ruling.  SEE HERE

I encourage all to read the entire article but here are some SkunK chosen excerpts below:

*************************

"Microsoft petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to consider whether an accused infringer that challenges patent validity based on prior art not considered by the USPTO during prosecution must overcome the 35 U.S.C. §282 presumption of validity by “clear and concurring evidence” or whether some lower standard of proof will suffice."

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit squarely rejected Microsoft’s argument . . ."

"The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously rejected Microsoft’s plea to modify the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof required to invalidate a patent." 

"However, the Federal Circuit, in setting its rule, took note of the “the deference that is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have properly done its job.”

"The Supreme Court said this strict invalidity standard always applies, even when evidence before the fact-finder was not previously available to the USPTO during the examination process."

*****************************

SkunK's thoughts.

MicroSoft's losing argument seems to have been that a patent should be declared obvious since the patent official did not have a certain prior art before them when they issued the patent.  They thought the burden of proof to find it obvious should be lessened.  The patent infringement defendants in our COES case seem to have a position even weaker than the losing Microsoft argument.  The COES Defendants in our case have submitted their prior art arguments and GreenShift took those arguments to the patent office for review. The patent office saw the evidence - The COES family of patents stood the test. 

"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."

When you look up deep pockets in the dictionary, there is a picture of MicroSoft.  They certainly did not have to pinch pennies to provide the absolute best in legal work - and they still lost based on law.   

Now maybe the COES defendants have thoughts of winning their case with an argument before the Supreme Court - with a case that seems weaker than what MicroSoft already lost?  Do they think the court is going to be swayed by evidence that the patent office has already deemed insufficient - when they failed in the Microsoft case to be swayed by evidence that the patent office did not even review???  

SkunK

Reason(able)

The SkunK has just received this response from Investor Relations to his question concerning our recent update in the Entity department.
***********************
Dear Shareholder:

All of GreenShift's patents and pending patent applications have merely been updated in connection with applicable laws to reflect the change in status due to the number of licensees that have been signed up.

Thank you for your continued interest and support.

Regards,
Investor Relations
GreenShift Corporation
*****************************
SkunK