Thursday, January 30, 2014

Order

Although the Court does not believe it is necessary to re-construe claim terms
that have already been briefed (some of them more than once), . . Therefore, the Tag-Along Defendants shall file any said motion regarding constructionof additional claim terms no later than two weeks after CleanTech serves its preliminary infringement contentions.

See Here

PARTICULARIZED MOTION

And Here

SkunK

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Iroquois also uses a strainer . . .

See Here
SkunK

More Arguments
Charter

Continuous?

See Here

SkunK

PS  Does a piston in an Internal Combustion engine move continuously?  A piston moves first in one direction and then the other.  In that instance when it changes direction, a piston is neither moving in one direction or the other.  Therefore it has stopped.  The mechanics of a single piston does not run "continuously".   But your engine - and your car - does not stop.  The process of propelling your car forward is continuous. 

Monday, January 20, 2014

Friday, January 10, 2014

Rocketing the Tag Alongs up to Speed

The Tag-Alongs are being brought up to speed.  Quickly.

See HERE

SkunK

Today

That vacated status meeting is held today.

See Here

SkunK

Thursday, January 9, 2014

GumShoe on the Case

The following consist of two (identical?) text sections.

The first section is what I was able to create with like five copy/pastes and adding a single period from THIS DOCUMENT HERE.

The second section was what I copy/pasted from the comment section of my recent blog. 

It appears I am the second person to do the same thing.  It looks like someone used the document above from an unrelated case to create the post in my comments.

PS.  I claim no supernatural powers.  Only the powers of GOGGLE.   If you goggle a major portion of the text below it will lead you to both the document and the comment section of my blog. Given all the printed material in the scope of human history -  the unrelated doc and the comment in my blog come up as one and two.   Coincidence?

Click For EXAMPLE

PSS  Did I solve the mystery?  Maybe.  If one could link a lawyer to both cases, then one could then say that they merely wrote both from a generic "settlement file".  That could explain the "sameness" although it would not explain its apparent absence in Pacer.  Copy/pastes are used as shortcuts by both lawyers AND pranksters.  Although at this point I lean heavily toward the latter.  I would, however love to be wrong.

*************************************
Text Section One
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND VACATE STATUS CONFERENCE

("Plaintiff") (together with Defendants, the "Parties"), by counsel, hereby inform the Court that they have reached a settlement in the above-captioned case. The Parties are working on finalizing the settlement documents and anticipate filing a dismissal within thirty days. Accordingly, the Parties have mutually agreed to extend Defendants'  deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint an additional thirty days, pending the finalization of their settlement papers and filing of the dismissal. The Parties also request that the Court vacate the status conference.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that in light of the Parties' settlement that the court extend Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint an additional thirty days.
 
***********************
Text Section Two
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT MOTION
TO EXTEND DEADLINES AND VACATE STATUS CONFERENCE
("Plaintiff") (together with Defendants, the "Parties"), by counsel, hereby inform the Court that they have reached a settlement in the above-captioned case. The Parties are working on finalizing the settlement documents and anticipate filing a dismissal within thirty days. Accordingly, the Parties have mutually agreed to extend Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint an additional thirty days, pending the finalization of their settlement papers and filing of the dismissal. The Parties also request that the Court vacate the status conference.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that in light of the Parties' settlement that the court extend Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint an additional thirty days.

*************************

SkunK

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

As You can see . . .


 
 
 
 
 

As you can see the order 1074 (last blog)was the last document in Pacer.  One would expect anything that caused the judge to issue the order (i.e. settlement) to have come before it.  (The old cause and effect relationship).  I do not see it.  However 1068 is missing from the list.  Out of order is common.  Missing number is not so common but not unheard of.  One has to go back over 30 days to find a sealed document so I suspect those are unrelated. 

So, my conclusion for now is I do not know what is going on.  Nothing unusual to report. Situation normal.

SkunK


 

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

No Meeting

Meeting Vacated.  Not sure what this means.  Something? Nothing? Lets let our imaginations run wild.

See Here

SkunK

Noon CST Update.  The first post in the comment section rightfully has my interest.  Cannot find anything on Pacer.  It may be just an answer to my off hand invite to let our imaginations run wild?  Trying to get a comment from someone who would know . . .

Friday, January 3, 2014

2014 Here We Come!

Discussion Scheduled HERE

Data Protective Order HERE

SJ Request HERE

Defendant SJ Argument for '37 here

Defendants claim USPTO made terrible mistake in granting '037 patent.  They also claim raw fish processing and Corn Oil Extraction is similar . . . what the heck do I know . . . maybe it is?  But I got a benjamin that says it smells a whole lot different!

"Raw fish pieces are cooked and then introduced to a Press whereby two streams are separated – a "Press cake" (primarily solids) stream and a "Presswater"  (primarily liquid) stream. This process step is similar to the ethanol plant process where whole stillage is received from the distillation step and processed in a centrifuge to produce a wet cake (primarily solids) stream (distillers wet grains) and a thin stillage (primarily liquid) stream."

Besides going for raw fish processing, the defendants bring up curds and whey in making cheese.   Raw fish processing and Cheese cutting.  An olfactory bonanza!

The defendants also directly challenge the court's previous rulings.  Is this the path of a confident defendant? 

"The Court’s construction of "oil" altered the scope of the claim as written and should be reconsidered and reconstrued."

The defendants appear to make the argument that if one is not very successful in infringing a patent, then one should be exempt from prosecution?  They hold out two defendants as leading examples:

"Because the oil recovered by Cardinal Ethanol and Lincolnway Energy has a very large percentage of contaminants, summary judgment of infringement must not only be denied, but summary judgment of noninfringement is in order."


". . . very large percentage of contaminants. . . "???  Doesn't sound like a commercial for corn oil sales . . . all of a sudden the raw fish and cheese sounds good!
  
 
SkunK
 
Free Blog CounterTamron