GreenShift's Argument See Here
"The reference in Figure 2 to that example showing “95% recovery” is a reference - not to recovery of total oil - but recovery of the portion of the oil that was separated in the centrifuge."
"It follows from the specification of the patents-in-suit and the prosecution history that the comment below the “Oil Recovered” box in Figure 2 in the Provisional Application (which states “[w]e cover [sic] the majority of the oil. In this example we show 95% recovery”) is a reference to recovery of the portion of oil that was unbound during the evaporation process and targeted for separation and recovery by the centrifuge rather than the total oil as argued by Iroquois. (Ex.1, ¶ 13 Winsness Declaration)"
Dave Winsness statement on the 95% Here
SkunK
Greenshift is gonna with this. It's just a matter of time. If we goto trial treble damages. Or they will settle quickly once the 037 comes into play.
ReplyDeleteThat might be what DW was trying to say but that is not how the patent was written and approved. In short not a single plant, not even the GS plants, are practicing the patent as it was written. I think they screwed themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe defendants are in trouble and they know it.
ReplyDeleteSounds like DW is trying to rewrite the patent on the after it was issued. It won't matter becuase the 037 is still out there.
ReplyDeleteDW's not trying to rewrite it. He's clearing up that the 95% example was just an EXAMPLE. Defendants used that line to state that as long as their system is less than that, than it's not infringing.
ReplyDeleteGreenShift's patents are PROCESS patents, which means its HOW the oil is extracted, not how MUCH.
If you actually read the patent, it's clear the 95% was presented as one example. It is not THE example. It is not the comparison by which anything slightly different is not infringing, because again, the patent is on the PROCESS, not on the AMOUNT extracted.
Please, idiots, stop posting here unless you took a little bit of time to learn the details.
page 7, paragraph 7, i see 21 characters redacted in regard to revenue. this many:
ReplyDelete$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
that could hide a lot of zeros.
Don't get too excited over shadows. That redaction appears to consist of 21 character, which could be as little as "$10,000.00-$20,000.00". Or it could be "$1,000,000-$1,500,000". Or it could be "$ 999,999,999,999,999". Lot of room for speculation in those shadows.
ReplyDeleteDave "Splains" Things!! Just back from a Long Island, NY Wedding Trip! Corn is a disaster along the Interstate 70 Band from St. Louis through Pennsylvania. Soybeans don't look good either. Bad news for Ethanol. Good news for GERS because without their Process, Ethanol Producers will REALLY be hard pressed for profit!
ReplyDeleteBaby ADRN is working on different Feedstocks to process for fuel. This also could be derivative Good News, in the long view! Thanks to those who missed me. I am still on the Green side of the grass. (What there is of Green Grass around here!) Anon 7:45, Right On Target!!
Not sure what patent you reading but that is not what I read. I guess the jury will decide in about 3 years! Good luck to all.
ReplyDeletenot enough accumulation occuing to offset the dilution...price will continue on its 5 year journey south...my heart aches...pain misery torture...
ReplyDeleteSounds like you need to get laid.
Deleteenough back royaltys accumulated that dilution is meaningless
ReplyDeleteYep they can buy back those shares with that amount of money coming in
ReplyDeleteNycdream
closed hod look out monday
ReplyDeletenobuddy,
ReplyDeletethem redacted zeros represent just one defendant company's ill-gotten gains. no?
so maybe multiply that by a factor of about 15. no?
To me looks like it's 100s of millions.
ReplyDelete