Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Tag Along Argument Rejected

The Tag-Alongs are now officially in the case
See Here

Tag Along's should join the tele-conference
See Here

Tag Along's File things this way
See Here

Defendant's Request for Extension Here


nobody123789 said...

Two years ago I stated, based on input from experienced IP attorneys, that we were MANY years from closure of this MDL litigation.

Closure meant then and still does -- the receipt of court awarded damages. Nothing else is material here as dilution and R/Ss will not end until this closure occurs. I will not review here the factual basis of that statement. Of course, I was roundly chastised for making those statements. But time has proven that view correct and recent filings document that we may not even be half-way to this closure.

For those willing to deal with the factual basis of this statement I invite you to read "Median Disposition Time for Cases Terminated After Hearing or Submission" -- data from the Court of Appeals where this is headed AFTER the district court proceedings have been "decided".

nobody123789 said...

The inexorable grind to zero BID continues.

Anonymous said...

update: n0b0dy wife geeting taged along wth 4 males...coming on news @11

Anonymous said...

This will be settled out of court. Vast majority are. Hurt feelings are great to inspire country songs, not business. No more drama in this case than many others.

I said this once long, long ago that this will be settled. I feel no need to repeat myself. I do not feel I need to convince anyone of anything.

Do your own dd. Or not. Its all up to you.

nobody123789 said...

Never! You do not understand the personalities involved. This is not about business any longer; any more than Hitler invading Russia and creating a two-front war that made no business (military) sense. This is a fight to the finish. It is clear to many close to the personalities that if DVG takes GERS down while ruining his business he will consider himself the victor. If you bought shares upon the assumption of a settlement you may have erred.

nobody123789 said...

Seven Trading Days to Zero Bid.

Here is my reasoning. First, we are teetering on 0.0000 BID and 0.0001 ASK at this time. Second, the market has been good to most and selling GERS in the last few days of this year would make sense for tax reasons. Third, most investors know that we will be in a dilution mode for quite awhile as we have learned in the Q3 that there will not be "white knight" financing to stop it and these proceedings (and resultant cash award) are a long way from being finalized. Thus, new money interest to counter end-of-year selling is unlikely. Fourth, All this leads to the inevitable next R/S, and with further dilution after that the opportunity to buy in at a greatly reduced price than now.

Adding all this toughener, it is difficult to see how the likely selling pressure, dilution, and lack of buying can lead to anything but a zero BID, and then every one still holding being stuck until the next R/S.

Anonymous said...

I understand just fine.

Anonymous said...

update: n0b0dy wife geeting taged along wth 4 males...coming on news @11

Slashnuts said...

GERS' Licensee Leads Industry With .90 Pound Yield

GERS #2 largest customer is a group of plants owned by ANDE and MPC.
These plants lead the industry with an extraction yield of more than .90 pounds.

Compare this to the patent infringing producers stuck in the .5 to .6 pound range. Not only are infringers burning cash defending themselves in this lawsuit they're losing, they're also getting 50% less oil.

Ethanol (gallons shipped)

Corn Oil (pounds shipped)

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

nobody123789 said...

"The registrant had approximately 18.7 million common shares outstanding, no par value, at October 31, 2013."

An echo, of course. No one would pretend this was new.

Slashnuts said...

Judge Rejects PEIX Arguments, Rules in GERS' Favor

Defendants argue, court disagrees...

Transfer finalized despite PEIX's pleas...

Judge grants GreenShift's request...

Patent infringing PEIX is losing the lawsuit...

This Is NOT good for patent infringing PEIX. NK and PEIX's worthless lawyers fought hard to keep this case in California. And for good reason, They didn't want to be added to the case the other infringers are losing. The judge has ruled against the defendants time and again.

The defendants lost the Marksman hearing. This hearing interpreted the patents claims in GERS favor. Even after ICM promised that under a so called "proper interpretation" GERS patents would be invalid. That didn't pan out.

So ICM appealed and lost...

". . . it would be inappropriate to grant this extraordinary remedy merely to strike a recommendation in an opinion that does not rise to the level of an actual decision, the legal conditions for mandamus relief have not been satisfied. The court therefore denies ICM’s petition."

GERS debt now due Dec. 2014.

Court Issued Rulings Favor GreenShift

Defendants’ Assumptions Completely Without Support

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

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."

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important, construction of the ‘858 patent will expose Plaintiffs’ failure to explain how the ‘858
patent claims differentiate from the clear teaching of Prevost U.S. Patent Application Publication
No.US2004/0087808 (“Prevost”) to obtain oil from concentrated thin stillage by centrifugation."

Court's Answer:
"Indeed, Applicants do distinguish their claimed methods from Prevost, but they do so explicitly on the grounds that their claimed method teaches a post-evaporation process for recovering oil from the concentrate using heat and mechanical processing."

nobody123789 said...

Getting nervous? Won't all this great "news" mean nothing if they violated the on-sale bar?

Slashnuts said...

New Patent Allowed After Reexamination by the USPTO.

USPTO Shrugs off supposed "sale bar letter", allows another patent in spite of it.

It's clear after a reexamination by the USPTO, the letter has been considered an offer to test and within GERS; permitted rights to perfect the invention.

As if losing nearly every ruling in court, and losing their little appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't enough, the USPTO has come over the top and handed ICM another blow. They reexamined and confirmed GERS' newest patent application as valid after considering every last "Hail Mary" defense.

Back on April 19, 2012, GERS filed patent application number 13,450,991.

On July 24, 2013, the USPTO sent notice that the application's claims were allowed.

On September 16, 2013, GreenShift requested that the application be pulled, reconsidered, reexamined. GreenShift submitted to the USPTO every argument the defendants could find, including the "sale bar" and "animal processing defense".

On November 12, 2013, the USPTO again allowed the claims despite everything the defendants could regurgitate. The application will now be issued into yet another patent with the fee due February 12, 2014.

ICM Denied by The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Curcuit

" would be inappropriate to grant this extraordinary remedy.. The court therefore denies ICM’s petition."

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

Anonymous said...

The more I review the facts, the more I realize that the "letter issue" is not really an issue at all but the last thread that the infringers have to hold on to. And it certainly does not apply to the newer patents. $200,000.00 is a ridiculous market cap. The revenue stream is solid and ever increasing and I would expect that at least on or two of the defendants may settle soon. Now wouldn't that be a kick in ICM's cornhole!

nobody123789 said...

1) Then buy some more (put some money where your words are).
2) Doesn't the USPTO assume that the documents are authentic and not forged?

nobody123789 said...

Anonymous said...

If you have been reading with any knowledge you would know two things.

1. Even the defendants' paid "expert" could find no PROOF that anything was forged or that the signature was not as old as it was supposed to be. He did say that he "thought" the same thing as the people who were paying him. No surprise there. Big difference. I can see why politicians are so successful parsing their words. The art of reading comprehension is extinct.

2. The second point lost on most people is "so what?" GreenShift already made this argument. Even if they had proved (they did not)that he signed it after the date on the letter what does that mean? Nothing. It is a document being used by the defense. It has no affect on the prosecution to protect the patents. The defense is creating a tempest in a teapot.

Geez would people actually think about it? What happens if they proved it was signed yesterday? So what? Judge going to throw the document out? Great!

This is only a shinny thing used to identify the feeble minded.

Anonymous said...

Tell your wife that "It is my opinion that it is probable" that you love her. You will be spending Christmas alone in the garage.

Yet some have confidence in a V-hinder paid expert who starts every sentence with a "kinda or a maybe?"

It is my opinion that it is probable . . .

suggesting that . . .

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis was not feasible . . .

. . . no opinion can be given as to the date the signature was made.

What was not said in these cases is way more important than what was said.

An expert can say "the sun may not rise tomorrow" since it is always a true statement. Take the "may" out of the sentence and it is a lie. You have to have a little sophistication when you read testimony from an "expert".

Free Blog CounterTamron