TUESDAY, JUNE 11
| 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm | |
Track 3: Coproducts & Product DiversificationCorn Oil Extraction: The Growing Appetite for Higher Yields
See Here
SkunK
Looks like Mr. Winsness is helping to lead a class at the FEW. This has happened most of the last five years.
Friday, May 31, 2013
In a FEW days
Fuel Ethanol Workshop (FEW)
TUESDAY, JUNE 11
David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer, GreenShift Corporation
Corn Oil Extraction: The Growing Appetite for Higher Yields
See Here
SkunK
Looks like Mr. Winsness is helping to lead a class at the FEW. This has happened most of the last five years.
TUESDAY, JUNE 11
Corn Oil Extraction: The Growing Appetite for Higher Yields
See Here
SkunK
Looks like Mr. Winsness is helping to lead a class at the FEW. This has happened most of the last five years.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
The Skinny on Circus Mandamus
It took a little sKUNking around, but here's the skinny:
And Here is the 208 page ICM filing
What's this about? ICM claims the MDL "court clearly erred as matter of law and/or abused its discretion when it ruled on the motion to transfer ICM's first-filed declaratory judgment action to the Southern District of New York. It is respectfully requested that this court issue a writ of mandamus directing the transferee court to vacate those portions of its February 27, 2013 order."
SkunK
Click on the docket for a larger view . . . I count three variations on the word "reject" in the first page of the docket. Granted it is minor stuff, but not the way you plan to create a positive first impression.
And Here is the 208 page ICM filing
What's this about? ICM claims the MDL "court clearly erred as matter of law and/or abused its discretion when it ruled on the motion to transfer ICM's first-filed declaratory judgment action to the Southern District of New York. It is respectfully requested that this court issue a writ of mandamus directing the transferee court to vacate those portions of its February 27, 2013 order."
SkunK
Click on the docket for a larger view . . . I count three variations on the word "reject" in the first page of the docket. Granted it is minor stuff, but not the way you plan to create a positive first impression.
Settlement Conference and a Wittle Writ of What?
New settlement conference date is here. It is now 22 July 2013.
ICM is asking for a Writ of Mandamus Here.
Notice that it is filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court.
What the heck is a Writ of Mandamus? Mr. Wiki speaks HERE.
At first blush it seems that ICM is trying to compel the MDL court to do or not do . . . something . . ?
SkunK
I hate to go out on a (short) limb here, but it seems obvious that ICM has not been happy with the way things have been going in the MDL court. Time after time the court has sided with GreenShift on the major issues. Time and again ICM has used border line harsh language to describe the court's decisions. ICM is now going up the food chain to get things straightened out!
It seems ICM has a very high legal bar to cross. If they are not legally justified in this step and are ruled against, they run the risk of appearing arrogant and disrespectful of the MDL court. Or is that burning bridge already in the rear view mirror?
ICM is asking for a Writ of Mandamus Here.
Notice that it is filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court.
What the heck is a Writ of Mandamus? Mr. Wiki speaks HERE.
At first blush it seems that ICM is trying to compel the MDL court to do or not do . . . something . . ?
SkunK
I hate to go out on a (short) limb here, but it seems obvious that ICM has not been happy with the way things have been going in the MDL court. Time after time the court has sided with GreenShift on the major issues. Time and again ICM has used border line harsh language to describe the court's decisions. ICM is now going up the food chain to get things straightened out!
It seems ICM has a very high legal bar to cross. If they are not legally justified in this step and are ruled against, they run the risk of appearing arrogant and disrespectful of the MDL court. Or is that burning bridge already in the rear view mirror?
Monday, May 27, 2013
Seach
Here is a free search page that can inform us quickly if Cleantech Corporation v. Pacific Ethanol, Inc. will stand on its own - or if it is only the start of another round of infringement litigation. Putting "Cleantech" in the search line gives initial results faster than the official "pacer" system. I suspect we will know the answer within three weeks. Once a new litigation is established, the usefulness of this search vehicle gets a bit cloudy. Although Pacer charges 10c/page, these private systems charge a premium.
SkunK
SkunK
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Local Litigation
I see there is some appropriate discussion about why local attorneys are filing these new litigation filings and what this means? First of all I speak with no authority or inside information on this subject but I do remember what happened in the past. Local attorneys are on the ground and have the standing to file in their local District Court. I think it is as simple as that. We have the world sitting in a box on our desk, but some things are still limited by physical location. I believe standing and filing in the United States Eastern District Court of California are one of those things.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. See Here This was the first GERS filing for these particular defendants from three years ago - done by a local lawyer in the Minnesota Federal District Court. This was the second filing.
Unlike this example case, I believe it is far too late to get this new case conjoined with the others in the present MDL case. I believe that is why Colburn is not included in the bottom left hand corner (like my examples) of the new litigation. Although this will not move on to the MDL case - it will be affected by it. With all favorable MARKMAN rulings in the bag, I agree NOW is the time to file on additional infringers. New cases will have to depend on the precedent of these previous MARKMAN rulings - and MARKMAN rulings are the key to successful litigation/settlements.
SkunK
Here is an example of what I am talking about. See Here This was the first GERS filing for these particular defendants from three years ago - done by a local lawyer in the Minnesota Federal District Court. This was the second filing.
Unlike this example case, I believe it is far too late to get this new case conjoined with the others in the present MDL case. I believe that is why Colburn is not included in the bottom left hand corner (like my examples) of the new litigation. Although this will not move on to the MDL case - it will be affected by it. With all favorable MARKMAN rulings in the bag, I agree NOW is the time to file on additional infringers. New cases will have to depend on the precedent of these previous MARKMAN rulings - and MARKMAN rulings are the key to successful litigation/settlements.
SkunK
GS Cleantech Corporation v. Pacific Ethanol, Inc.
Big News. Looks like the new litigation has begun. SkunK says we get a PR on Tuesday.
See Here
Thanks to this post on I-Hub for the heads up.
SkunK
Bonus: Here is a Glen Courtright BusinessWeek Update for those who remember.
See Here
Thanks to this post on I-Hub for the heads up.
SkunK
Bonus: Here is a Glen Courtright BusinessWeek Update for those who remember.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Court Rulings
Summary Motion Denied
This is about GERS trying to get the Adkins counterclaim for breach of contract thrown out right away. This is not a ruling on the patent litigation.
New Schedule
Correction to new Schedule
SkunK
This is about GERS trying to get the Adkins counterclaim for breach of contract thrown out right away. This is not a ruling on the patent litigation.
New Schedule
Correction to new Schedule
SkunK
Friday, May 17, 2013
Settlement Conference
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Key Points
As of May 14, 2013, there were 147,441,907 shares of common stock outstanding.
As of March 31, 2013, the Company had $2,420,380 in cash, and current liabilities exceeded
current assets by $40,495,861.
On March 29, 2013, the Company and YA Global entered into an amended forbearance agreement pursuant to which the maturity date of the Company's outstanding debt to YA Global and its assignees was extended to December 31, 2013.
Clean Copy now available on the GreenShift Web Site HERE
Recent Litigation Summary
On August 6, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s motion to amend its various complaints to include the recently issued U.S. Pat. No. 8,168,037 (the “‘037 Patent”). On August 31 2012, the Company filed amended complaints alleging that certain Defendants infringed the ‘037 Patent. On November 7, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s motion to amend its various complaints to include other patents directed to similar technology.
On November 9, 2012, the Company filed amended complaints alleging that the Defendants infringed U.S. Pat. No. 8,008,517 (the “‘517 Patent”) and U.S. Pat. No.8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent).
On November 19, 2012, the Court denied Adkins Energy, LLC’s Motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for breach of contract, and for partial summary judgment on one part of Adkins’ damages. The Court found that Adkins had not established its substantial performance under the contract or that the Company breached its terms with Adkins.
On January 29, 2013, the Court issued a supplemental order on claim construction. Because this order modified the Court’s earlier claim construction, the Court stayed all briefing in the pending summary judgment motions regarding infringement.
On February 12, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment against Adkins’ counterclaims of breach of contract (and related defenses). Adkins filed its opposition on March 22, 2013. On February 27, 2013, the Court dismissed a number of unfair competition claims asserted by ICM against the Company, but the Court allowed ICM to proceed with a federal Lanham Act claim against the Company.
On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an order on claim construction for the ‘037 Patent.
SkunK
As of March 31, 2013, the Company had $2,420,380 in cash, and current liabilities exceeded
current assets by $40,495,861.
On March 29, 2013, the Company and YA Global entered into an amended forbearance agreement pursuant to which the maturity date of the Company's outstanding debt to YA Global and its assignees was extended to December 31, 2013.
Clean Copy now available on the GreenShift Web Site HERE
Recent Litigation Summary
On August 6, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s motion to amend its various complaints to include the recently issued U.S. Pat. No. 8,168,037 (the “‘037 Patent”). On August 31 2012, the Company filed amended complaints alleging that certain Defendants infringed the ‘037 Patent. On November 7, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s motion to amend its various complaints to include other patents directed to similar technology.
On November 9, 2012, the Company filed amended complaints alleging that the Defendants infringed U.S. Pat. No. 8,008,517 (the “‘517 Patent”) and U.S. Pat. No.8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent).
On November 19, 2012, the Court denied Adkins Energy, LLC’s Motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for breach of contract, and for partial summary judgment on one part of Adkins’ damages. The Court found that Adkins had not established its substantial performance under the contract or that the Company breached its terms with Adkins.
On January 29, 2013, the Court issued a supplemental order on claim construction. Because this order modified the Court’s earlier claim construction, the Court stayed all briefing in the pending summary judgment motions regarding infringement.
On February 12, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment against Adkins’ counterclaims of breach of contract (and related defenses). Adkins filed its opposition on March 22, 2013. On February 27, 2013, the Court dismissed a number of unfair competition claims asserted by ICM against the Company, but the Court allowed ICM to proceed with a federal Lanham Act claim against the Company.
On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an order on claim construction for the ‘037 Patent.
SkunK
Friday, May 10, 2013
Non-MDL Update
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Markman II
"The ‘037 Defendants have not convinced the Court that the concentrate terms are ambiguous." "Such is not the case here; the claims are unambiguous."
"As Plaintiffs suggested at the Markman hearing, the patent examiner was
persuaded that the inventor’s combination of elements, whether well-known in the art or
not, was new."
"Further, The ‘037 Defendants could not point to anything in the prosecution history that limits the patented invention to a separate evaporator. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the evaporating terms mean just what they say: “to subject the post-oil recovery thin stillage concentrate to further or additional evaporation.”
"The ‘037 Defendants proffer no argument in support of their proposed construction."
"037 Markman See Here
Extension Order Here
SkunK
This was an old fashioned arse whipp'n - plain and simple. Maybe I missed something but I see nothing the defendants can look at as a victory, moral or otherwise. The judge looked at the evidence and sided with GreenShift.
PS. The judge did side with the defendants on not giving GreenShift an extension - and then gave GreenShift an extension.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Request for Extension
Interesting behind the scenes information
See Here
***************
Withdraw
See Here
***************
Sealed
Sealed ii
Sealed iii
Order Sealed in part
SkunK
See Here
***************
Withdraw
See Here
***************
Sealed
Sealed ii
Sealed iii
Order Sealed in part
SkunK
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
