Monday, November 25, 2013

Re-Writing Prevost

The Prevost patent application has always been a cornerstone of the accused patent infringers' defense.  It failed in the Markman claim construction.  The defense now takes the novel approach that the court should rewrite Prevost so that it makes the COES Patents void.  We will see how that works for them.  Here is a quote below:

Undeterred, Defendants argue that the 15% water disclosure is “an obvious typographical error” and should have said “15% fat.”   Defendants thus ask this Court to re-write a prior art reference—not just altering its meaning, but giving it effectively the opposite meaning—to anticipate the patents-in-suit. Defendants cite no case for this remarkably extreme position. They cite no case in which a court “corrects” a typographical error on a critical disclosure to anticipate a patent.  And they have no authority for the even more extreme position that such a “correction” can give the reference the opposite meaning of what it initially said.”
Defendants relied heavily upon claim 19 of Prevost during the Markman phase of this case, but never suggested it included a typographical error that fundamentally changes the meaning of the claim.  p.88-89

Greenshift claims that there is no precedence in having the court rewrite Prevost.  I disagree.  Allow me to provide a well used source for the defendants:

“ ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ” **

Through the Looking-Glass - Lewis Carroll

**This passage has appeared in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two United States Supreme Court cases. See, e.g., TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 173 n.18 (1978)   See HERE for my source - footnote 116.  The defendants are not choosing a new path of defense.  This path is regrettably well worn.  For the court to accept this legal chaos theory however, now that would be a pathfinder route indeed. 


jimmowrey said...

150 pages was a long read, but worthy of the time I spent reading it. GERS legal team is Cracker Jack!

Slashnuts said...

Excellent work by the GERS legal team. What a great job!

Prevost consistently mentions 15% water numerous times. The USPTO agrees and so will the judge, IMO.

I like how GEA will not sell centrifuges to ethanol plants unless they have a license with GERS. That was news to me. I believe ICM has also dropped their indemnification pledge. The writings on the wall.

This filing removes all doubt from my mind about testing and the letter. They were clearly within their rights.

Also, check the public PAIR website. 13,450,991 has again been allowed after a reexamination by the patent office. Despite every single argument by the defendants, the USPTO has again ruled in GERS favor.

I wonder how the good judge feels about ICM claiming he was "clearly mistaken" now that the writ has been rejected by the appeals court?

Revenues up 38%, cash up 160%,
GPRE now over 1 billion gallons...
I'm buying more here. What's another few grand?

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

Anonymous said...

Icm sat on a wall an had a great fall

all the kings horses an men couldn't put 'em together again

nobody123789 said...

All wins -- incredible -- can it continue? A little nap then a work out

nobody123789 said...

Came back from the workout to find the BID falling. So much for all our good "news". Where is the PR addressing the real news?

Free Blog CounterTamron