"In compliance with the Court’s Case Management Order, CleanTech submits this motion in order to adhere to the October 1, 2012 deadline to add new patents to the Case. CleanTech respectfully requests permission to amend the Complaint to add a count that alleges infringement of the ‘484 Patent."
I am the SkunKhunter. I hunt down SkunK stocks. Those are stocks that have been beat down past any reasonable justification. I try to ride the stock up as market forces eventually right the ship of PPS. A SkunK is not a herd animal. He is a scavenger who knows that arriving before the herd means big profits and clean shoes. This is the journey of the GreenShift Corporation. Updated weekly between COB Friday and Sunday evening. (Disclaimers on Bottom of Site)
This was posted on this blog BEFORE yesterday's Memorandum of Law documenting that Dave W. was going to be deposed again soon. Was this a guess or were we visited by someone with inside information?
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
DW is back on the stand later this month...stay tuned.
September 30, 2012 8:41 PM"
Why would it be necessary to "start-over" (re-litigate) [the attorneys' words] this case if the case is so open and shut based on the patents already in evidence as so many here believe? Is any one staring to understand how long this is really going to take? There were many voices a year ago that said we would be at closure by now (October 2012). Who will say that about a year from now at this time?
ReplyDeletewow get out of the basement LOL youre on here all day everyday sucker, time to cover donkey boy
ReplyDeletehahahahahaha^
ReplyDeleteAddress the question please, why would we have to litigate the infringement again based on the '484 patent if we won our case based on the patents in evidence? Not my words, but those of GERS' attorneys. The answer -- because we did not win based on the patents in currently in evidence.
ReplyDeleteand you have how many degrees? jeeez! for being so educated you ask dumb questions.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you have no other answer; they do not need the '484 patent if they win this suit based on the patents currently in evidence. Thank you for your concurrence.
ReplyDelete516 517 037 484 plug up loop holes but are all based on 858. 484 will be added one way or another but isn't material like 858. In other words perfectly normal.
ReplyDeleteThat's right 9:58 The 484 will speed this up since the US pto approved it after reviewing the defendants "letter" argument.
ReplyDelete"Loopholes", sounds like something a good attorney could drive a truck through. Again, another way of stating agreement with me.
ReplyDeleteDefendants resisted 516 517 037 because they knew it effectively blew the tires out of the "truck". The 484 is a wrecker speeding the delivery of the disabled "truck" to justice.
ReplyDeleteSpeeding or delivery of justice? In either case, my point about the possible implications on the attorneys' statements on the length of time before justice may be served is germane.
ReplyDeletedefendants insisted on ... 517.
ReplyDeletenow they can defend them all.
or try to.
"please dont throw me in that thar briar patch"
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteand you have how many degrees? jeeez! for being so educated you ask dumb questions.
October 2, 2012 9:34 AM"
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaah
Good analogy
ReplyDeleteWas 517 a trap? It's the substantially patent right?
ReplyDeletebids up @ 6 !
ReplyDeleteYea they hung themselves with patent they lobbied for. ironic
ReplyDeleteyes, painted themselves into a corner.
ReplyDeleteYup, all of the defendants attorneys in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Des Moines, some form very prestigious law schools, are idiots too.
ReplyDeletejust like you
ReplyDelete... over educated, book smart, with no common sense.
ReplyDeletewhat form?
ReplyDeletehahahahahahaha^
ReplyDeleteAll those prestigious lawyers and they're losing their asses. there's your sign
ReplyDeleteNo kidding Defendants and lawyers are probably buying gers.
ReplyDeleteWith our money.
ReplyDeleteWe do not need your measly penny's
ReplyDelete