Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Defendant's Argument

See Here

SkunK

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

civin's 680 patent, claim 1, referred to in hopkins, uses the term "substantially free of" while civin's 204 patent, claim 1, expressly uses "1-5%." the court reluctantly adopted a construction that required at least 90% purity.

Anonymous said...

In english what r u saying?

Anonymous said...

epilogue:
i serched for the 050 provisional and , from what was available, i dont know what the hell theyre taling about.

what am i saying? if i have to explain, you wouldnt undrstand.

Anonymous said...

R u saying this s bad because Hopkins didn't define substantially free of oil that was just their number. It wasn't defined

Anonymous said...

This not good for greenshit.

Anonymous said...

hello jimmbody

Anonymous said...

In plain language the Defendents Claim is that they don't infringe on GERS Patents because THEIR Process is not that Efficient! Despite their best efforts to extract 95% of oil, they can't.

As a Minimum, that is not a good Sales Point!!!

As applied to this Lawsuit, it turns Reason on its Head, saying, in effect, GERS has a superior Process to Ours! Therefore we can't be Infringing on their Process, although we are trying!!

The Judge should throw this out as Garbage! The whole concept of Patents is that they Protect a New And/Or Improved Method. Exactly GERS Claims! DHOLE

Anonymous said...

Honestly, if I was in the business of running an ethanol plant and I read the DEFENDANT's own arguments against the patents, their arguments would make me want to sign up with GreenShift.

Anonymous said...

Just because GERS has a patented method that can theoretically remove 95% of oil from the stillage it does not oblige them to do so. The DDGS coproduct requires varying oil contents for various livestock, I do not know what the magic number is but it would certainly be higher than 5%.

"The best evidence for defining the scope of the patented invention is the words of the claims themselves. These words should normally be given their ordinary and customary meaning unless the patentee has acted as its own lexicographer." If the above quote is to be believed, the lack of a defined oil ratio to be removed should still stand, if not with this judge, it will at trisl. 95% is a restriction placed unfairly on an invention that never uses this term in it's patent. GERS will triumph, eventually....

Anonymous said...

Wow. Did Greenshift screw this up. They either had no idea how there system was going to work or where guessing how it was going to work. In short, GS 858, 516 and 517 cliam that they remove either all or 95% per of the oil in the sitllage. That amount to 2 lbs per bushel or so. That is alot of oil. I don't GS's or anybody for that matter removes even close to that. What is the average oil removed?

Anonymous said...

95 % is not in the claims of the patent. It was assumed by the defendants read before you. Ass ume

Anonymous said...

Definition of majority is more then 50%

Anonymous said...

It report by some that it was actually voiced by the judge during the markman hearing. She deferred ruling it till the trial. You might argue that we have idea what the court is thinking bit who knows...what a fricking mess.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron