On October 23, 2014 the District Court in Indiana ruled in favor of defendants on their motions for summary judgment alleging that the corn oil extraction patents that have been issued to GS CleanTech were invalid. The judge’s ruling in the MDL case is not final as there are additional issues in the case that are not resolved. The Company strongly disagrees with the Judge’s ruling, intends to mount a vigorous appeal and notes that all patents remain valid until the appeals process is exhausted.
On October 23, 2014 the United States District Court in Indiana, to which our patent enforcement actions had been assigned, entered summary judgment declaring that our principal corn oil extraction patents are invalid. The decision is not yet final, pending additional issues in the case. We intend to appeal the decision at the appropriate time and believe that we will ultimately prevail. However, the decision may have an adverse impact on our licensing activities until we achieve a favorable result in the court of appeals.
See Here
SkunK
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/duke-energy-wins-verdict-reversal-in-epa-lawsuit-over-indiana-power-plants.html
ReplyDeleteThe appeals court also said that U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney, who presided over the trial in Indianapolis, improperly admitted expert testimony proffered by the EPA.
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-court-decisions---sept-4---17-2013/PARAMS/article/32442
ReplyDeleteJudge Larry McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of SPX on all claims, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.woodmclaw.com/attorney/douglas-b-king
After the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and then reversed on the plaintiff’s appeal to the U.S.C.A. for the 7th Circuit (¶ 23 on the case list of published decisions), the case was remanded for trial to Larry McKinney
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cafcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Centillion-Data-Sys.-LLC-V.-Qwest-Commc%E2%80%99ns.-Int%E2%80%99l-Inc.1.pdf
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana in Nos. 04-CV-0073 and 04-
CV-2076, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
"Because we reverse the summary judgment of noninfringement
with respect to eBC, we vacate the district
court’s award of costs to Qwest."
ReplyDeletehttp://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D04-15/C:12-2255:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1118572:S:0
Apr 15, 2013 ... 1:10-cv-00765―Judge Larry J. McKinney erred, ... So we reverse the summary judgment
Hilarious. I'm sure none of the judge's rulings have ever stood. Given that he'd be the trial judge and his comments in the last paragraph of the sj, I wouldn't get my hopes up
ReplyDeleteJudge McKinney's decisions get overturned more than a Las Vegas crack whore...
ReplyDeleteThis one will too...
Do you understand how dumb this, "He's had decisions reversed, therefore this one will be," sounds? What if he had ruled in GERS' favor? Would you have been citing these cases had that happened? I think not.
ReplyDeleteMcKinney has a reputation as one of the most reversed judges in the country. Had he ruled in GERS favor, I would be worried about it being reversed.
ReplyDeletewheres the deference to the ustpo?
ReplyDeleteis that a new construction at 68?
ReplyDeletei read the email, at best, as an offer to sell a tangible item, for 400k. acceptance of the terms unequivocally required the know-how to remain confidential and vdt's exclusive property. how is that a sale of the invention?
ReplyDeleteIII. SALE OF A PROCESS
ReplyDeleteA claimed process, which is a series of acts or steps, is not sold in the same sense as is a claimed product, device, or apparatus, which is a tangible item. “‘Know-how’ describing what the process consists of and how the process should be carried out may be sold in the sense that the buyer acquires knowledge of the process and obtains the freedom to carry it out pursuant to the terms of the transaction. However, such a transaction is not a ‘sale’ of the invention within the meaning of [pre-AIA] §102(b) because the process has not been carried out or performed as a result of the transaction.” In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332, 62 USPQ2d 1425, 1429 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, sale of a product made by the claimed process by the patentee or a licensee would constitute a sale of the process within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See id. at 1333, 62 USPQ2d at 1429; D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 1147-48, 219 USPQ 13, 15-16 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Even though the sale of a product made by a claimed method before the critical date did not reveal anything about the method to the public, the sale resulted in a “forfeiture” of any right to a patent to that method); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 310 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The application of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) would also be triggered by actually performing the claimed process itself for consideration. See Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 1328, 60 USPQ2d 1687, 1691(Fed. Cir. 2001) (Patent was held invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based on patentee’s offer to perform the claimed process for treating oil refinery waste more than one year before filing the patent application).
well ya but the judge did not distinguish between tangible and intangible property in his analysis, and there was no consideration to vdt in exchange for the know-how identified by judge larry.
ReplyDeleteae's self serving secret extraction and sale of several tanks of oil was merely a ruse designed to destroy patentability to competitors and not a bona-fied commercialization.
ReplyDeletevdt did not offer to extract for consideration for ae and did not to receive consideration for any extraction. the invention was simply hi-jacked!
ReplyDeleteand it was all experimental
ReplyDeleteViolation of on-sale bar only minor aspect of the reasons for the SJ. It is very unlikely that all components will be overturned by Appellate Court. All have to be before the SJ will be lifted. Therefore, the patents will no longer be the focus of GERS' business. Perhaps this is a blessing in that it will force KK to focus on marketing superior technology, in terms of higher yield. The yields of GPRE and other licensees far exceed those of the ICM product.
ReplyDeletebut if the defendants were holding back to evade infringement, that may well end SOON.
ReplyDeleteright. i have more trouble with obviousness/anticipation than sale.
ReplyDeleteWould you buy a used car from these guys?
ReplyDeleteon second though, they extracted before evaporation.....whick minimizes my obvious concern.
ReplyDeleteshut
ReplyDeleteup
Predictor strikes again and misses completely. (more easy, the rest of the world can't read)
ReplyDeleteBlogger nobody123789 said...
If people can read and/or if folks are still paying attention, the PPS should disappear today as folks scramble to get out. That exit portal is very narrow. With no one buying and dilution no longer an option how can the company pay its bill and survive?
And then there is some stupid remark of a rally to bankruptcy probably the same as him turning in his realty deed and then denying he bet the farm.
Where's Don Meredith when you need him?
ReplyDelete"Turn out the lights, the party's over."
ReplyDeleteGreenshift Corp.
$ 0.0016 ▲0.0005 (45.45%)
Like I said, if people are paying attention to what is happening -- they obviously are not. What did Barnum say about suckers and minutes?
ReplyDelete0.0017 ▲ 0.0006 (54.55%)
ReplyDeleteThe scramble for the exit is overwhelming. (more easy, the GERS exit door is so small that they pay a premium if you leave.)
ReplyDeletePE of .05?
ReplyDelete5 reverse splits and massive toxic financing dilution?
ReplyDeleteHere it comes -- the crush to get through the narrow exit; 0.0001 and R/S next stop.
ReplyDeleteJudge kicked the USPTO in the nuts, most if not all will be overturned on appeal and SJ will be found! I wonder what the USTPO saw that the judge couldn't see? Ahhh, common sense maybe? I wonder if he was on the dole? Just asking...
ReplyDeleteHow is the R/S going? Incredible to see the over hyped stock price thanks to all the pumps finally dropping to levels with less fantasy. All this air and rose colored expectations we see now evaporating trough these massive dumps from the hoards that were lured in this stock thereby artificially inflating this POS to these unsustainable levels.
ReplyDeleteThe trailing 12 month P/E is 1.5
ReplyDeleteU.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney ordered Duke Energy to shut down 3 units.
ReplyDeleteDuke's Chief Legal Officer Marc Manly said the company was disappointed with the court's decision.
An appeals court overturned that order, allowing Duke Energy to restart the units.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/duke-energy-wins-verdict-reversal-in-epa-lawsuit-over-indiana-power-plants.html
ReplyDeleteThe appeals court also said that U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney, who presided over the trial in Indianapolis, improperly admitted expert testimony
I sold my shares after weeks of trying to contact the company and getting no response. It dawned on me that if they don't care, wtf should I. peace out bitches.
ReplyDeleteAppeal must be filed within 30 days post SJ. If not, the SJ is final. That date is this Saturday. It is very unlikely that all components of the basis of the SJ could be overturned upon appeal. If they all are not, the SJ would stand. Hopefully, they have the seen the wisdom of not pursing the business model of suing their way to success and will start to focus on what most companies do -- market their way to success with better services and products. Remember the defendants have won on the point that since their processes are not as efficient and GERS' they are not infringing. Turn that around and market, boys and girls. Make it a business decision to go with the company that can make them the most money. Stop wasting our money on something that is now not winnable.
ReplyDeleteNew 52 week and all-time low for PPS -- 0.0011. As I have stated previously the destination of the PPS is clear to any one that cares and can read the English language.
ReplyDeleteScam
ReplyDelete