New Motion Here
SkunK
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Seal
Defendant request for seal
GreenShift Opposed to Complete Seal
Remember when the judge said to STOP sealing everything? So do I. But then I also remember when the judge said:
"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."
So the judge said 'stop sealing everything' and "substantially free of oil" does not yet have a number attached. IROQUOIS files a motion claiming:
"Both patents disclose that more than 95% of the corn oil . . . is recovered by the centrifuge".
Yet a quick search of the patent shows no reference to 95% of anything. Now IROQUOIS files a motion to seal an entire document rather than redact what is necessary. (GreenShift counter files gently reminding the judge of his previous ruling.)
Is IROQUOIS really not paying attention? Or are they masterfully playing on a 10x10 chess board, while the rest of us are limited to 64 squares? I am sure we will know shortly with the judge's reaction. Gosh, I hope he does not seal his response!
SkunK
GreenShift Opposed to Complete Seal
Remember when the judge said to STOP sealing everything? So do I. But then I also remember when the judge said:
"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."
So the judge said 'stop sealing everything' and "substantially free of oil" does not yet have a number attached. IROQUOIS files a motion claiming:
"Both patents disclose that more than 95% of the corn oil . . . is recovered by the centrifuge".
Yet a quick search of the patent shows no reference to 95% of anything. Now IROQUOIS files a motion to seal an entire document rather than redact what is necessary. (GreenShift counter files gently reminding the judge of his previous ruling.)
Is IROQUOIS really not paying attention? Or are they masterfully playing on a 10x10 chess board, while the rest of us are limited to 64 squares? I am sure we will know shortly with the judge's reaction. Gosh, I hope he does not seal his response!
SkunK
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Hello? Can you hear me now?
Remember when all the defendants wanted to know the exact% of oil that was considered to make it "Substantially free of oil"? Then the judge said it did not have to be decided now? It might take experts and testimony at trial?
Well apparently it was there all the time - at least this motion says it is 95%. I wonder what the judge will think. Are these lawyers paying attention or did I miss something?
95% is substantially free of oil
SkunK
Well apparently it was there all the time - at least this motion says it is 95%. I wonder what the judge will think. Are these lawyers paying attention or did I miss something?
95% is substantially free of oil
SkunK
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
New Patent
FLASH DESICCATION AND/OR MECHANICAL HYDRODYNAMIC CAVITATION will become patent number 8191806 on 5 June 2012.
This is the first patent with Kevin Kreisler listed as the first inventor. Congratulations to Mr Kriesler and GreenShift investors.
See Here
SkunK
This is the first patent with Kevin Kreisler listed as the first inventor. Congratulations to Mr Kriesler and GreenShift investors.
See Here
SkunK
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
1Q is OUT!
SkunK Note: The information above is a quote out of the 1Q. If is Greenshift management's narrative of the 1st Quarter and specifically - their Plan of Operation. I typically post that information first from any Q or K. It gives Greenshift's perspective. After all isn't that one of the reasons we read any information from the company - to get their perspective? As investors our perspective is by definition different. How different? We will never know unless we start out by reading the company's perspective. My comments are in blue and normally come later.
Plan of Operations
We have entered into license agreements with ethanol producers corresponding to more than 2.3 billion gallons per year (“BGY”) of ethanol production at full production capacity. Revenue for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 was $3.0 million as compared to $2.7 million from the same period last year (net of the impact of non-recurring transactions in which we sold our remaining production facilities during the first quarter of 2011 (the “YA Corn Oil Transaction”)). We incurred a net loss during the first three months of 2012 of about $700,000, as compared to a net loss of about $522,000 in the first quarter of 2011 net of the impact of YA Corn Oil Transaction.
Approximately $1.7 million in expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2012 were non-cash and included about $580,000 in accrued interest expense, about $150,000 in expenses associated with the change in value of the Company’s conversion liabilities, and about $400,000 in accrued royalty expense incurred in connection with our increased corn oil production during the quarter. Another $600,000 of the non-cash expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2012 related to increased legal costs incurred mostly as a result of our ongoing litigation for patent infringement. We have entered into a modified contingency-based agreement with Cantor Colburn, LLP, our lead counsel in our infringement litigation, pursuant to which we are only required to pay $50,000 per month in cash. Accordingly, most of the increased legal costs incurred during the quarter were non-cash.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with our licensees to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of recovering as much corn oil as possible. We will also remain focused on winning new business and increasing our licensed penetration. To do so, we will continue to provide exceptional services, the highest-performing systems packages available, and access to new technologies for further gains in licensee profitability and competitive advantage. We will continue to expand our patent portfolio. We have many additional patents pending and we will remain committed to developing new technologies to further enhance the profitability of our licensees. And, we will stay the course in our ongoing infringement litigation but plan to expand our efforts to aggressively prosecute any entity, manager or other person infringing or inducing infringement of our technologies – all with a view towards enhancing and protecting the significant competitive advantage of our licensees.
Our financial performance for the balance of 2012 and beyond can be expected to be most significantly impacted by the rate at which our existing and new licensees commence production, the amount of corn oil that our licensees produce, the market price for that corn oil, the extent to which we collect reasonable royalties, and the costs incurred in our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patents. In addition, future results may be improved by the impact of event-driven systems integration contracts as we continue to receive significant interest for our engineering and other services in connection with the design, construction, integration and modification of corn oil extraction systems and other new systems for existing and prospective licensees. We are currently party to a number of such agreements which can be expected to contribute to revenue during 2012.
We expect to continue incurring substantial costs in connection with our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patented corn oil extraction technologies. These costs increased during the second half of 2011 and are expected to continue to increase through 2012 in advance of trial, and as we expand our litigation to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees by prosecuting additional producers and other parties infringing our patents. These expenses may delay or otherwise adversely affect our ability to achieve our profitability and debt reduction goals. We hope to eventually eliminate our litigation expense, but we must and will take all necessary steps to bring infringement of our patents to an end. We have reserved cash for this purpose.
Here it is!
SkunK
Plan of Operations
We have entered into license agreements with ethanol producers corresponding to more than 2.3 billion gallons per year (“BGY”) of ethanol production at full production capacity. Revenue for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 was $3.0 million as compared to $2.7 million from the same period last year (net of the impact of non-recurring transactions in which we sold our remaining production facilities during the first quarter of 2011 (the “YA Corn Oil Transaction”)). We incurred a net loss during the first three months of 2012 of about $700,000, as compared to a net loss of about $522,000 in the first quarter of 2011 net of the impact of YA Corn Oil Transaction.
Approximately $1.7 million in expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2012 were non-cash and included about $580,000 in accrued interest expense, about $150,000 in expenses associated with the change in value of the Company’s conversion liabilities, and about $400,000 in accrued royalty expense incurred in connection with our increased corn oil production during the quarter. Another $600,000 of the non-cash expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2012 related to increased legal costs incurred mostly as a result of our ongoing litigation for patent infringement. We have entered into a modified contingency-based agreement with Cantor Colburn, LLP, our lead counsel in our infringement litigation, pursuant to which we are only required to pay $50,000 per month in cash. Accordingly, most of the increased legal costs incurred during the quarter were non-cash.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with our licensees to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of recovering as much corn oil as possible. We will also remain focused on winning new business and increasing our licensed penetration. To do so, we will continue to provide exceptional services, the highest-performing systems packages available, and access to new technologies for further gains in licensee profitability and competitive advantage. We will continue to expand our patent portfolio. We have many additional patents pending and we will remain committed to developing new technologies to further enhance the profitability of our licensees. And, we will stay the course in our ongoing infringement litigation but plan to expand our efforts to aggressively prosecute any entity, manager or other person infringing or inducing infringement of our technologies – all with a view towards enhancing and protecting the significant competitive advantage of our licensees.
Our financial performance for the balance of 2012 and beyond can be expected to be most significantly impacted by the rate at which our existing and new licensees commence production, the amount of corn oil that our licensees produce, the market price for that corn oil, the extent to which we collect reasonable royalties, and the costs incurred in our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patents. In addition, future results may be improved by the impact of event-driven systems integration contracts as we continue to receive significant interest for our engineering and other services in connection with the design, construction, integration and modification of corn oil extraction systems and other new systems for existing and prospective licensees. We are currently party to a number of such agreements which can be expected to contribute to revenue during 2012.
We expect to continue incurring substantial costs in connection with our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patented corn oil extraction technologies. These costs increased during the second half of 2011 and are expected to continue to increase through 2012 in advance of trial, and as we expand our litigation to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees by prosecuting additional producers and other parties infringing our patents. These expenses may delay or otherwise adversely affect our ability to achieve our profitability and debt reduction goals. We hope to eventually eliminate our litigation expense, but we must and will take all necessary steps to bring infringement of our patents to an end. We have reserved cash for this purpose.
Here it is!
SkunK
As of May 15, 2012, there were 29,373,071 shares of common stock outstanding.
MAX
New Max filing Here. This is not patent litigation but side litigation in New York concerning a Montana Seed Crushing plant some time ago. A little short on the actual who, what, when and wheres if you ask me. What is lacking in evidence is more than made up for in accusations. However, as I frequently brag - I am not a lawyer - and I guess we will see what the judge thinks this go around.
SkunK
SkunK
Monday, May 14, 2012
FEW
AT the June 4-7 Fuel Ethanol Workshop, GreenShift will be exhibiting at booth 432.
The interactive map above can be seen here.
June 6th 3:30-5:00 PM
Track 3: Coproducts & Product DiversificationRoom 200B, Level 2
Maintaining Coproduct Value while Simultaneously Capturing the Financial Benefits of Corn Oil Extraction
Maintaining Coproduct Value while Simultaneously Capturing the Financial Benefits of Corn Oil Extraction
- Moderator: Paula Emberland, Business Analyst, Christianson & Associates PLLP
- David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer, GreenShift Corporation
Corn Oil Extraction: The True Impact on DDG Values - Pete Moss, Vice President, Marketing
Cereal Process Technologies, Fractionation: Optimizing Feed Market Options - Tara Vigil, Vice President, KATZEN International Inc.
Coproduct and Product Distinction: Carving out a Niche through Process Design and Operations - Joseph Riley, General Manager, FEC Solutions
Developing Long-Term Value for Extracted Corn Oil
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Cardinal Reports
One of the very first defendants reports:
Corn Oil
Our corn oil sales increased in the three month period ended March 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 as a result of increased production in the three month period ended March 31, 2012. Management continues to refine the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. In March and April 2011, we began testing a chemical additive to assist in the extraction process and improve oil production which resulted in a significant increase in production over prior years. Recent production issues have resulted in a lowered yields. However, management is working to resolve production issues and is optimistic that yields will increase as a result.
The average price per pound of corn oil was $0.39 per pound for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as compared to $0.40 for the same quarter in 2011. Management expects corn oil prices will remain relatively steady in the near term but could decrease due to the elimination of the biodiesel tax credit or if there is an oversupply of biodiesel. In addition, additional plants entering into the market and producing corn oil could result in an oversupply of corn oil which could negatively affect prices unless additional demand can be created.
See Here p.21
SkunK
Corn Oil
Our corn oil sales increased in the three month period ended March 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 as a result of increased production in the three month period ended March 31, 2012. Management continues to refine the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. In March and April 2011, we began testing a chemical additive to assist in the extraction process and improve oil production which resulted in a significant increase in production over prior years. Recent production issues have resulted in a lowered yields. However, management is working to resolve production issues and is optimistic that yields will increase as a result.
The average price per pound of corn oil was $0.39 per pound for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as compared to $0.40 for the same quarter in 2011. Management expects corn oil prices will remain relatively steady in the near term but could decrease due to the elimination of the biodiesel tax credit or if there is an oversupply of biodiesel. In addition, additional plants entering into the market and producing corn oil could result in an oversupply of corn oil which could negatively affect prices unless additional demand can be created.
See Here p.21
SkunK
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Ready for Issue
The Patent Application METHODS FOR ENHANCED PROCESSING OF BIOMASS USING FLASH DESICCATION AND/OR MECHANICAL HYDRODYNAMIC CAVITATION is much closer to being issued. It had previously been allowed and it is now been designated as ready for issue. This is not a typical COES patent, but a different advanced technology. Looking at a couple recent examples the actual "Issue" is likely 2-3 months away, although other examples show much quicker possibilities.
SkunK
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Recent Defendant Filings
Here are some Litigation updates by the defendants. We have been on the road visiting family since last Friday and my internet time was minimal. I'll try to get back up to speed.
GEA and ACE and 517 Patent HERE
GEA and ACE right to file Counter Claims HERE
GEA and ACE Opposition
**************************
ICM files ditto 2nd to 4th
**************************
Defendant's Endorsement due to local rule
Defendant's Endorsement due to local rule II
SkunK
GEA and ACE and 517 Patent HERE
GEA and ACE right to file Counter Claims HERE
GEA and ACE Opposition
**************************
ICM files ditto 2nd to 4th
**************************
Defendant's Endorsement due to local rule
Defendant's Endorsement due to local rule II
SkunK
Friday, May 4, 2012
GERS Answers Flottweg
ICM has already attempted to amend its complaint to include a claim directed to the same patent and the Court denied that motion. In response to every Defendant who questioned CleanTech about the ‘517 Patent, CleanTech repeated that it did not currently intend to assert the ‘517 Patent.
See Here
And Here
SkunK
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
GERS Answers
Defendants are trying to expand their counterclaims to include a declaratory judgment claim against an expressly unasserted patent. Defendants are clearly trying to dictate CleanTech’s litigation strategy and increase the complexity and cost of CleanTech’s lawsuit.
SkunK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
