Indianapolis, IN -
Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has allowed an additional patent to be added to a complex patent infringement suit over Ethanol byproducts. The plaintiff in this case, GS CleanTech Corporation of New York, New York had requested to amend its complaint to add infringement claim regarding patent no. 8,008,516, which has been
issued by the US Patent Office, to the lawsuit.The REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE
It appears that at the bottom of the article is also quite a few articles that I also missed.
SkunK
You guys should check out www.InvestorsHangout.com... It's opening today and it's not going to be like certain sites that continue to upset investors by allowing nonsense. Dhole, you'll never run out of posts here my friend. lol
ReplyDeleteNobody is back full time on Ihub. Just under the name Tadaa.
ReplyDeletePathetic!
It appears the GERS process is now old technology and obsolete. With POET and Valero going to pre-distillation recovery of corn oil at a greater recovery rate for the same capital investment, why would one go to back-end fractionation? I already sold my equity and I suggest you do the same.
ReplyDeleteYou must understand that the opposition has many technical staff positions that gain their position by being process and chemical engineers. GERS has none of this, just a few guys that came fom the poultry industry and had a good idea. Now that idea has been circumvented by people smarter then them. GERS technology is now obsolete and the patents may hold, but who would go with GERS technology at lower yield and the same capital cost. GERS did not do there homework on upstream technology because they never had the scientific input to further the solution. Just a few marketing guys that had a good idea. Look at how they screwed up the biodiesel efforts promised. Look at how they screwed up the algae oil efforts they promised. Look at how they screwed up the Montana facility. True chemical and process engineers applied within this company would have made a difference, but sales people do not engineer success. All they do is sell to you, reverse split, and sell you again. And yes they screwed me on my investment.
ReplyDeleteU sound bitter. R u gonna cry soon. Wahhhhh
ReplyDeleteMaybe u want everyone to sell and drop pps. I can post under anonymous too.
U could be anyone ur just pissed ,cause we re gonna take icm down
We can still sue for current infringement.
Last Anony, why not counter his position with detailed information that compares the two processes? How do you know he is not right? Just because you believe he is not does not make you right either; your response of calling the poster a "cry baby" will not likely convince most of us that his points are invalid. I would like more learned folks to weigh in on this important issue. We do not need to hear from GERS believers, but COES technically knowledgeable folks.
ReplyDeleteFrom a chemical engineering standpoint, it makes sense more corn oil will be extracted from the fermentation product with ethanol as a solvent as is done in conventional processing of other vegetable oils with hexane. Ethanol also removes sterols that are a hinderance to biodiesel production. It appears the BTX process provides a natural solvent, "ethanol", that allows separation of the light phase ethanol constituents including sterols and allowing recovery of the heavy phase corn oil. This is different from back-end separation because the light phase here is not corn oil, but an ethanol/corn solids solution with dissolved solids that is easily separated.
ReplyDeleteThis is a new process that does not violate GERS patents. In fact, it is a better process than the GERS process, so GERS lovers be aware.
Okay why was patent rejectred no claims allowed
ReplyDeleteMr chemical engineer
Does this mean the illiterate bashers on Yahoo were fired? The defendants must be desperate to upgrade the quality of the basher work and post it here. At least this guy can copy/paste, thats more than the scam scam brothers could do. lol
ReplyDeleteThere is a more than considerable gap in the revenue that would be generated from the claimed yield and the stated time for payback.
ReplyDeleteBoth, in the article and the PR where Valero announced doing corn oil with ICM, a 2 year payback is stated. However, the article claims 1.5-2# recovery per bushel. The PR states 0.5#/bu.
A 100mmgpy EtOH plant will grind approx. 125000 bushels of corn per day. At 1.5#/bu @ $0.32, you do the math. It's not going to take 2 years to pay off $4mm.
If ICM, on their own or with Valero's help, discovered some other method, that truly delivers the higher yield, and that discovery happened in a Valero plant, you can bet that Valero will insist on some type of exclusivity, to have a competitive advantage,likely a 2 year period .
A claimed yeild of 2#/bu is fantesy. Likely the reporter was told there is 1.5# - 2# of corn oil "available" to extract. Details, Details
ReplyDeleteThis is like saying someone elimnated all friction in a train. Not reduced it, eliminated it. If you think about it it is not possible, and not even desired.
No offense to this reporter, but whatever field you have personal knowlege about, and you watch it covered in today's press, the gap between what they report and what you know to be true is normally huge. That should point you to be a little skeptical when they report about something you know little about.