Monday, February 18, 2013

Fagen Litigation Update

This is a side case - not part of the major litigation.

See Here

And Here
SkunK

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://blog.cleantechies.com/2013/02/18/court-re-construes-greenshift-ethanol-processing-patents-and-defers-sj-motions/

Anonymous said...

how much of the total oil content in concentrated thin stillage is or has been recoverable?

nobody12378 said...

Anony 5:49,

Thank you for providing that link to an important assessment by a knowledgeable and experienced patent attorney. What is interesting as well is Mr. Lane's assessment of the state of the October 2011 claims construction as "mixed" allowing the defendants the room to make their most recent arguments. It is important to remember that almost everyone stated that the October 2011 claims construction was a "slam dunk" for GERS. I attempted to provide another perspective based on consultation with another patent attorney that was thoroughly ridiculed. It appears that if the October 2011 ruling was truly a "slam dunk" for GERS we would not have had this 14 month delay. Point: eupohrians get it wrong far more often than is healthy for the innocent investor.

http://www.greenpatentblog.com/2011/10/20/court-issues-mixed-claim-construction-ruling-in-ethanol-processing-patent-case/

Anonymous said...

Nobody, Would you agree that the revised court ruling is a slam dunk now? What does you son say to that?

Maybe we won't have to experience another 14 month delay before a court rules in out favor.

nobody12378 said...

I haven't talked to him and I am not qualified to interpret. But I find this statement of Mr. Lane most significant: "The defendants argued that all of the patent claims require the concentrate or syrup after the oil recovery step to be substantially free of oil. The court disagreed and held that none of the claims of the ’858 Patent have this requirement and only claim 7 of the ’516 Patent and claim 8 of the ’484 Patent require that the post-oil recovery step syrup stream be substantially oil free."

It seems we are moving closer -- the problem is the time to come to closure (until money changes hands). This case is an attorney's wet dream through all the delays that result in billable hours. Until we get the cash we will still continue to dilute, even new financing (if it ever occurs) will require payments it doesn't appear that we can make. So, it is impossible to get too excited about what appears to be good news because we could win this battle (the litigation) and lose our war (from the perspective of the common shareholders being diluted into oblivion).

Anonymous said...

lol nobodys son is a hobo he dont got no law degreeee

Anonymous said...

GGGRRRREEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

nobody12378 said...

One-hundredth of a cent got your nickers in a bunch, when they are so many important challenges to address?

nobody12378 said...

Does it have any value to screech:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDD?

Anonymous said...

eric > nobody hahahha sucker

Anonymous said...

so the FBI called me b ack, they oopened an APB for nobodys fuzzy balls...will update soonn

Anonymous said...

Atropied, Puny Balls? APB?

Anonymous said...

U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled support for Monsanto Co. in a clash with a farmer who used harvested soybeans to plant a second crop, hinting at a victory for makers of vaccines, software and genetically modified products.

Hearing arguments today in Washington, a majority of the nine justices suggested that Monsanto has broad rights to control the use of seeds that contain its patented technology. The genetically modified seeds are used to grow more than 90 percent of the nation’s soybeans.

Without strong patent protection, “Monsanto would have no incentive to create a product like this one,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

Several justices today suggested they agreed with that reasoning. Justice Stephen Breyer said federal patent law lets a purchaser use a product for a variety of purposes, such as making “tofu turkey” from soybeans.

“What it prohibits is making a copy of the patented invention, and that is what he did,” Breyer told Bowman’s lawyer

nobody12378 said...

ATROPHIED! You knuckle dragging Cro-Magnon idiot!

Anonymous said...

OFFERING
License Agreement Right to use technology in return for the right to purchase the extracted oil.
Purchase Price 51% of diesel spot.
Financing Licensee installs: .......................................................... receive 90% of cash proceeds until ROI
51% of diesel spot thereafter
G Shif i ll 51% f di l f i iGreenShift installs: ............................................................... 51% of diesel spot from inception

Anonymous said...

You have ATROPHIED Balls? That sounds serius! Take a little Blue Pill! Or two. Maybe more in your case.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron