Thursday, August 15, 2013

GS Cleantech Corporation v. Aemetis

See Here

This appears a little different than the new recent litigation.  It seems to be a COES supplier.  And operates its own systems.  Not sure, but I suspect they got the information confirmed from one of the new defendants recent pleadings that they may be a technology supplier.  This pulls back the curtain a bit on the potential royalty base.

SkunK

Thanks to Slash again for the heads up in the previous comments section.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

How about adjusting the $3.8 million for the $1.4 million increase in accounts payable. Anybody can generate cash when they use other people's money and not pay their bills.

nobody123789 said...

Here comes the dump:

Ask/Size
0.0014 / 16,313,400

Anonymous said...


how about repays 1500000 debt?

how bout cash near 4000000 only 500000 last q 2012


cashs /\ 700% doin goood
doin real goood

Anonymous said...

how much cash will have after Icm loses?

Anonymous said...

6000000 sales q3

Anonymous said...

ask @ 1.4 !
n0b0dys pissed !

clean tech said...

GS isn't messing around. Who's next?

Anonymous said...

amtx no bid

Anonymous said...

I bet Mr. Fallat is much wiser then Nobody. His shortsightedness is again appalling.

Anonymous said...

slash & skunk you guys r thhe best THNXS

nobody123789 said...

Short sighted? Wonder if you will be myopic enough to overlook the new low that is coming or the R/S after that? Those that confuse hopes for vision will fall off the trail to riches long before they reach their goal.

Anonymous said...

gers will have $500000000 cash when it wins

nobody123789 said...

Didn't take long for the tone to change after that dilution dump. Weak-kneed, fair weather friends of GERS -- just hanging on to make a few dollars, breathlessly fearful of what lies ahead.

Anonymous said...

gers will own Icm when it wins

Anonymous said...

n0b0dy got dumped on lst nite by wife terribl mistake becaz he cant trade and cry like dog hahah

Slashnuts said...

Considering Mr. Fallat's 42 years with The Anderson's, I would say he sticks with what he starts. He's a smart man and his tenor with GreenShift is just beginning, IMO.

Mr. Fallet has seen first hand the superiority of GERS' systems. ANDE's recent .88 pounds per bushel is evidence of that. So while infringing producers are sitting there scratching their heads wondering why the supposed AOS is extracting 60% below GERS' licensed producers, their legal bills are mounting.

As slow as justice may be, GERS' is winning in court. They got this and the recent lawsuit's reflect the growing confidence of GERS. They're simply ratcheting up the pressure because they're smelling blood.

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$

Anonymous said...

0.0001 coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$

nobody123789 said...

0.0001 coming Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$

Slashnuts said...

Defendants’ Assumptions Completely Without Support

Most important, the revised claim construction that ICM has dodged publicly reveals that their past rhetoric has exposed them as too big for their britches. The prevost prior art argument was dreamed up in Kansas, but never made it out Colwich.

"..NOTHING in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct."

https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?12010ml2181-169

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important the claim construction analysis that Plaintiffs have dodged, both publicly and before this Court, will require Plaintiffs to explain to this Court how the methods for corn oil recovery claimed in the ‘858 patent can be as broad as Plaintiffs’ rhetoric asserts when the exact same method is completely and identically disclosed in one prior art reference, namely, Prevost."

Court's Answer:
"Therefore, to distinguish itself from Prevost, Plaintiff clearly disclaimed that the heating that occurs as
part of the oil recovery step occurred at any time prior to or as a part of the evaporation or concentrating step."

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$

nobody123789 said...

Fortunately, it is easy to discern the real Nobody and not the hijacked moniker by the quality of the composition and command of the English language. No way to counterfeit the original.

nobody123789 said...

Unfortunately, it isn't easy to discern the real Nobody and the hijacked moniker by the quality of the composition and command of the English language. The original has been counterfeited.

Anonymous said...

hahahahahaha sucka^^^

 
Free Blog CounterTamron