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