Friday, June 29, 2012

Al-Corn Reply

See Here
Why the fuss?  Why the rush?

". . . Al-Corn does not and has never heated the syrup post-evaporation. . ."  Notice they only make the heating claim post-evaporation.  Yet the '37 patent seems to patent the heating during a multi-stage evaporator used as a pre-treatment for corn oil extraction.  Remember some engineers make a living designing systems around patents.  Many producers seem to have used a multistage evaporator system to raise the temperature to design around a heat pretreatment and then divert the steam to oil extraction.  This might have been successful - until the '37 patent.  Although issued on 1 May 2012 - this patent was published on May 15, 2008 and it could be argued that these multi-stage evaporator pre-treatment systems were taught to the defendants by this patent application.  No wonder the rush to get dismissed before the patent is brought into the litigation. 

Al-Corn also wants the case dismissed:  " . . . on the basis that each of the claims asserted in those patents require that the post-processed syrup stream be “substantially free of oil,”.  The judge has already ruled that that term will be decided in court.  How can the defendants now decide what the term means and that they not infringing because of their own definition?   
**********************************
And See Here

Here are some quotes and comments:

"Plaintiff first opposes Defendants' motion on the bizarre basis that the filing of an oversize brief would violate the Court's rules on page limits. Obviously, compliance with the Court's rules would obviate the need for the motion in the first instance." 

What can I say here?  GreenShift opposes an exception to the size of a brief due to Al-Corn and the defendants wanting permission to violate the court's rules - rules that GreenShift has had to comply with.  Why is that bizarre? 


The next sentence seems to say that if Al-Corn and the other defendants would only comply with the court rules they would not have to motion for an exception?  Well, yes I AGREE!     I have to ask:  Who's side are they on?  Are they reading their prior motions?  Is it me?  lol.
That second sentence is TRUELY bizarre.  The "motion in the first instance" originated with the defendants!    Aren't they the ones asking to violate the court's rules on page limits?

"The addition of yet another patent to this case, if the Court deems it appropriate, is no reason to delay the submission of a motion which will dismiss Defendants and claims from this case or at the very least simplify the issues."

Lets see exactly what they are saying here:

"The addition of . . .  another patent to this case, . . is no reason to delay the submission of a motion which will dismiss Defendants . . . from this case . . ."

So now the defendant's seem to claim that a patent is not significant in a patent litigation case.  Allow me to repeat myself:  "A patent is not significant in a patent litigation case."  That certainly explains the mindset that created this lead off sentence:
 
"This case and Plaintiff's assertion of dubious patents are a blight on the ethanol industry that must be eliminated."

In my opinion, these quotes above, and the contempt for the patent system it reveals, explains more than anything I could say about why we are in multi-year litigation over a multi-patented process. 


SkunK

PS Blue Flint motion here

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

get a million of these shares....it going to see one dollar some day...sure thing!..glta

nobody12378 said...

Skunk,

That is equivalent to the critical question: are there enough shares to sell to pay the bills while the litigation goes on and on?

Anonymous said...

i want to buy about 1.5 million of this junk....i think it pops and dies at 50 cents on cash court settlement

Anonymous said...

speaking of equivalents ...

Anonymous said...

I heard from a. investment advisor that specializes in energy companies told me today 037 invalidity opinions are already in the place. Sounds like GS will have sue everyone all over agian if the 037 is not included. Is this legal fight ever going to end for them!

Anonymous said...

And who are you anonymous I heard when the 037 patent enters the case they are all going to settle. That's why they are trying so hard to keep it out
Franky D

Anonymous said...

They say a patent is really never a patent until it is challenged in court. With the GS business plan they are going to need a team of lawyer's to stop infringers!

Anonymous said...

037 patent does not list Mr. Cantrel is a inventor. What happened to him?

Anonymous said...

Well why even have an agency for patents if they don't hold up. Might at well get rid of the USPTO

Anonymous said...

please share one of those many invalidity opinions

Anonymous said...

How many invalidity claims already failed? How many patents or patents pending? How many have settled? Many thanks

Anonymous said...

One more question. How much longer can infringers afford it with the money there losing today? Corn's high. lawyers are higher. Especially with a stack of patents against ya. Many thanks

Anonymous said...

Actually none have failed because the case has not gone to trial yet.

Anonymous said...

Not true I read something about a prevost claim that failed. Can anyone answer my questions? Many thanks

Anonymous said...

I am still trying to figure out who the real Anonymous is, and which ones are the imposters. I am one of the imposters by the way.

Anonymous said...

A patent invalidity opinion is simply a legal opinion drafted by a patent lawyer or patent legal firm that examined the patent in detail and developed a legal opinion as to why the patent is not valid or why there client is not violating the a existing patent. These opinions could be based on prior art that the patent holder was not aware or did not turn up in the patent search or simply procedural issues that the patent filer did not follow. The opinion must meet a series of reasonable and creditable standards in order for it hold up in court. Is then up to the patent holder to either file a legal action against the company or not if they aware that their patent is being violated. I assume that all of the companies being sued by GS in the MDL have opinions protecting them at this point.
Seems to me that all sides are following the law and taking the legal steps they both feel are necessary to protect their interest. Win or lose this it will be hard and very expensive for GS to fight a entire industry it seems, however, if they have a good legal standing they should prevail if they can afford to keep the fight for several more years. In some case defending a patent can be very costly and many times the patent holder just cannot afford to. The legal system is working just fine from what I can determine.

Anonymous said...

... opinions so lacking in reason or logic they dare not be shared before hand, least they create an incentive to retain someone else in the future.

thanks for [not] sharing but i think i will presume validity, like the judge will most likely do, until the contrary is proven in court, rather than the local pub.

Anonymous said...

The law states that all will presume validity of an issued patent until proven to be invalid.

Only the defendants decided that they can decide to do whatever is in their best short range interest.

A bank robber makes the same logical (although short sided) decision. It is in his short term interest to get lots of money in a short amount of time. Damn the consequenses or anyone else that gets in his way.

If a bank robber could afford a good lawyer he would say:

"This case and Bank depositers' assertion of dubious rights to their money are a blight on the get rich quick industry that must be eliminated."

Anonymous said...

Hey anonymous 1;01. That has to be the worst analogy I have ever heard. Try a few more cold ones and give of another try.

Anonymous said...

if i was a juror, i would agree that >60% was substantially oil, and visa-versa.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron