GEA, ICM, ACE and DOES 1-30

"The true names and capacities of the Defendants DOES 1-30 inclusive are unknown to GS CleanTech, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names. GS CleanTech will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained."

"Upon information and belief, the main purpose of the indemnification agreements provided by ICM under the control of and at the direction of Vander Griend, is to overcome the deterrent effect that the patent laws would have on the Defendants."

"By virtue of the actions taken by Vander Griend, who is in control of ICM and its operations, Vander Griend has actively aided and abetted ICM in actively inducing its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents."

"The inventors of the novel process, David Cantrell and David Winsness, completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004 and demonstrated, for the first time, that efficient extraction of the corn oil trapped in the dry milling byproducts was economically feasible."

"In the GEA Complaint in the GEA/Ace Ethanol Suit, GEA admits that its customers directly infringe the claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. (Exh. D, ¶ 14) GEA further admits that, at a minimum, it indirectly infringes the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. Id. In fact, GEA seems to boast about this infringement by admitting that, as of the date the original GEA Complaint was filed, it “sold twenty-nine centrifuges designed for corn oil recovery to twenty different ethanol plants across the country” which has resulted in “over $15 million in total sales for GEA.” Id. ¶ 37. GEA further seems to boast that it “is negotiating the sale of more than twenty additional machines” at the time of the filing of the original GEA Complaint."

Ace Ethanol further admits that it directly infringes the claims of the ‘858 patent. Id., ¶¶ 5, 38.

ICM further admits that it “sell[s] and/or use[s] equipment to practice corn oil recovery methods that are in part the subject of the claims of the ‘858 Patent.” Id., ¶8.

SEE ALL HERE

SkunK

This is the third of the 11 amended complaints.  What you see above are just what caught my eye the first time through the 15 pages.

I am no lawyer.  Yet in my opinion, the KEY date and wording of:

". . . completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004."   

may prove central to overcoming the defendant's last hurrah! 

PS  (If the feasibility testing was not done until sometime in 2004, then the testing was not done until less than a year before the provisional patent application in August of 2004.)