Thursday, July 5, 2012

FLASHBACKs and Review

Now that you have read the Defendant's idea of why they are not infringing - ask yourself:  Did they read or remember this court ORDER back in March?

"The extent to which the plaintiffs—now faced with the Markman ruling that the de-oiled concentrate stream is one “substantially free of oil”—must further explain the line or range above which the stream is no longer substantially free of oil is either (a) an issue to be explored on summary judgment; (b) an issue to be explored through a motion to construe the meaning of “substantially free of oil”; or (c) an issue for trial. Further, it appears that the issue of where the line is drawn is one for which expert testimony may be necessary, or at least desirable."

"Moreover, both sides know the percentage of oil in the concentrate stream for these defendants and that the plaintiffs contend that percentage falls within the “substantially free of oil” claim of the patent."

"For these reasons, the court DENIES the moving defendants’ request that the court order the plaintiffs to supplement their discovery responses by identifying the percentage line or range above which the concentrate stream is no longer substantially free of oil."

See HERE

SkunK

First the Defendants talked of Prevost as prior art, even though the US Patent Office had ruled against them. This was the issue that we were promised would crush GreenShift in court.  ICM issued numerous PRs talking of this prior art.   It took the judge in the Markman ruling (page 23) to slam that down ("completely without support") when he said:

"However nothing in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct. Defendants’ assumptions regarding the grounds on which Applicants distinguished from Prevost are completely without support in the record of the prosecution history."  HERE

Second the Defendants hid discovery and tried to blindside GreenShift with an old email.  The judge reacted by forcing the defendants to pay a portion of related GreenShift legal fees. 

"Although the court has not granted CleanTech all the relief it sought and has found counsel’s instruction not to answer improper, it has vindicated CleanTech’s position that the defendants improperly withheld critical documents on baseless grounds. That conduct triggered all the disputes now before the court."


"The court awards CleanTech, and against the defendants jointly and severally except for Adkins Energy, one-half its reasonable fees in drafting the motion for protective order, the brief in support, and supporting declaration."  SEE HERE

Defendants are still pressing the issue of the one year limit on sale, although the paperwork they put in for evidence was filled describing the "sale" with the words "experimental and trial".  An experiment is, of course, the major exemption for the one year limit on sale.

Finally the defendants have found a new issue du jour.  The judge rules that the Defendants do not have to list at this time, a specific amount to describe what is "substantially free of oil"  - so of course the defendants use a drawing in the patent to deduct what it does not say:  That you have to take out 95% of the oil to infringe a GreenShift patent - not 94.4%.  It has to be 95%.  Really?  Are they really taking this new argument in the 11th hour because it is their strongest?  Or their strongest argument left in the pile?

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

I really hope the justice system doesn't fail us with this one. We all know they are infringing. I don't understand how its even taking this long to rule that.

Anonymous said...

Judge, please order Dvg to disclose how he learned of the process in the first place.

Anonymous said...

It looks like their weakest argument left. Everything else has failed.

Anonymous said...

The better and much more interesting question is when did the two inventors learn it from the good folks at alfa?

Anonymous said...

Hey Buckwheat, better run that new crazy Alpha theroy over to the defendants quick, they need a new straw to grasp at and at this point they are far from choosey

Anonymous said...

jimmbody 1152

Anonymous said...

remind me never to get involved with a company utilizing toxic financing to stay alive...
or in a patent court struggle...i am looser

Anonymous said...

Buy a certificate of Deposit. 1.7 to 1.8% return.

Sure thing.

By the way, real Inflation is twice that.

Anonymous said...

Waaaaah

Anonymous said...

No big deal the 37 patent slams this loop hole shut with "a portion of oil". Infringers resistance of the 37 is futile.

Anonymous said...

Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

Anonymous said...

I read a post that Alfa might have been doing prior to GS. Is that just imfringer crap or is there any truth behind that?

Anonymous said...

you are long...the trade for 5 years has been to be short...so sorry chumps

Anonymous said...

The 95% argument is smoke and mirrors. It trys to add limits that aren't there. The picture is a example of a disk stacked not decanter.

Anonymous said...

What about substantially free of oil? Will this defense fail like the others? Me thinks they're grasping at straws.

Anonymous said...

We'll have to wait for the judge's ruling on the term. If they get lucky they could wiggle out of a few years of damages but the 37 breaks the back of the argument if it don't go our way. It would be damages from '08 instead of '05 if they get lucky.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks they gave up on invalidity and shifted to limit liability.

Anonymous said...

completely without support

Anonymous said...

judges words not mine

Anonymous said...

37 is extremely important. The substantially free defense fails.

jimmowrey said...

I am still reasonably certain GERS will win this case. It still seems the defendants M.O. continues to be the same: drag this out, and run the plaintiffs out of money. New financing will turn this around in a heartbeat. GLTA

Anonymous said...

the mentl maturbation continues...the price is down...reality

Anonymous said...

trade with stops....the trade has been short..no change suggested

Anonymous said...

They seems to confuse "substantially free of oil" with 'substantially oil free.'

Anonymous said...

any amount of oil that is more than what they got before 2004 (zero) is substantial.

any amount that more than covers costs of extraction is substantial.



The Defendants are in deep water and the judge is slowing popping one orange water wing then the other.

Anonymous said...

This whole thing is a mess. I will never invest in a company that is involved in this type of litigation agian. What a waste.

Anonymous said...

jimmbody 720

Neil said...

Anonymous 8.38am

Is there a point to stating "jimnobody X.XX am" every time someone says something you don't 100% agree with?
Open your mind a bit - you may find the ability to think makes life more interesting.

Anonymous said...

neil is jimmbody

nobody12378 said...

Neil,

Ever seen anything more infantile?

Anonymous said...

jimmbody playing with himself again

Neil said...

Nobody,
With that level of intelligence they're throwing their money away investing anywhere.

Anonymous said...

thanks for that neilbody

 
Free Blog CounterTamron