ICM's Amended Complaint

SkunK's attempt to condense ICM's Key Points - Using mostly ICM's language in the motion.
Count 1
1.  Defendant GreenShift knowingly misrepresented itself as the owner of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.

2.  . . . substantial amendments made to the claims of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications since the publication date of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.

Count II
3.  None of the independent claims of the ’858 patent identify a quantity of oil; a rate at which oil must be obtained; identify a commercial standard for performing the method; nor a standard for determining that the concentrated thin stillage stream leaving [the] centrifuge is substantially free of oil.
4.  Prior to July 31, 2003, David Cantrell was in possession of test results that established that oil could be easily separated from concentrated thin stillage by mechanical processing.The withholding of [this] information was with the intention of deceiving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about a written offer by David Cantrell to Agri-Energy, to sell an oil recovery system for recovering oil from concentrated thin stillage via mechanical separation more than one year prior to the August 17, 2004 filing date of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/602,050.
See ICM Filing Here

SkunK's answer to ICM's four points:
1.  GreenShift owns 100% of Clean Tech and Clean Tech owns the patents.  Does that mean GreenShift owns the patents?  I don't know what the law says but I can apply common sense.  We recently learned GPRE has an internal 100% owned company Green Plains Commodities LLC  that runs their COE portion of their business.  Does GPRE own its COE Systems?  Or does Green Plains Commodities LLC?  If no one paid ICM when they installed the GPRE COES, who would ICM have sued?  Not much of a rusty nail to hang your jeans on.

2.  Define "substantial"?

3.  Again, define "substantial".  GreenShift gets accused here of having received issued patents that are difficult to engineer around.  I thought that was the point?  I am sure ICM would have appreciated if GreenShift had limited their invention to COES painted green.  Then ICM could have painted theirs red.  GreenShift has patented a process and is not going to limit the process in any way to make engineering around it simple.

4.  No mention of the experimentation exception.  If one could receive patents off simple bench results - then I expect we would have numerous patents for perpetual motion machines.  GreenShift went to experiment, refine and prove its invention in the field and patent law has a well known exception to the one year rule for this.

SkunK

Well of course its just my opinion.  I would appreciate yours in the comment's section.  Thanks