Filing Here
You do not have access to this transcript.
TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 2-17-15 before Judge Larry J. McKinney. (35 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jean Knepley (Telephone: (317) 686-0197). Please review Local Rule 80-2 for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 3/19/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/27/2015. (Knepley, Jean)SkunK
Posts
22 comments:
Thanks Skunk for keeping the information coming. Aren't you just a little disheartened yet?
GreenShift Receives Notices of Allowance on Three New Corn Oil Extraction Patents
ALPHARETTA, GA. — GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB:GERS) announced today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently issued Notice of Allowances for the following U.S. Pat. Application Nos.:
•13/450,997 titled “Methods of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the “’997 Patent Application”) on December 19, 2014;
•13/185,841 titled “Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery from Ethanol Production Byproducts” (the “’841 Patent Application”) on December 24, 2014; and,
•11/908,891 titled “Methods and Systems for Washing Ethanol Production Byproducts to Improve Oil Recovery” (the “’891 Patent Application”) on December 26, 2014.
The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.
The Summary Judgment issued on October 23, 2014 by the District Court in Indiana and ruled in favor of defendants on their motions for summary judgment alleging that the corn oil extraction patents issued to GS CleanTech were invalid, including US Pat. Nos. 7,601,858 and 8,168,037. As previously announced GreenShift intends to appeal the Summary Judgment decision. Under applicable standards, a patent is not invalid until and unless a final judgment of invalidity is rendered after all available appeals have been exhausted.
“We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”
Coverage of Allowed Claims
The allowed ‘997 Patent Application is a continuation application of US Pat. No. 7,601,858, and involves the concentration and mechanical processing of thin stillage to recovery at least a portion of the oil from the concentrate. The ‘891 Patent Application and the ‘841 Patent Application are continuation applications of US Pat. No 8,168,037. The allowed claims in the ‘841 Patent Application cover processes directed to evaporating thin stillage to reduce water content, recovering oil with a horizontal centrifugal three phase decanter, evaporating the concentrate to further reduce its moisture content, and mixing the evaporated concentrate with distillers wet grains. The allowed claims in the ‘891 Patent Application include processes directed to washing whole stillage with thin stillage to increase the oil content of the thin stillage, followed by concentration and recovery of oil.
The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.
“We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”
Keep pumping -- Is that you Slash?
pumping? pumping is the use of falsified facts and twists of truth in order to drive a stock price up. aside from your post of obvious dislike of the company the other posts were factual and public knowledge.
if the above info is pumping than by your logic you're a basher, maybe even a dumper...
"Facts" that have nothing to do with the prospects of the company; no different than other "facts" that have driven down the PPS by 99.999% over the years? Come on, you think you can fool people any more with such "facts"? Don't you get a little tired of labeling folks as a "dumper" that maintain a some degree of objectivity?
Through continued innovation, GERS throws the ethanol industry another lifeline. DDS to plastic filler. GPRE.
02/19/15 Thermoplastic compositions containing biobased materials and processes for forming an article therewith
February 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Blogger nobody123789 said...
If it is such a "lifeline" why is no one paying for it?
February 27, 2015 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
• Currently have 50 significant customers
with expressed interest to trial
• 20 Customer trials in queue; 7 customers
with dedicated R&D Programs
13/450,997 NOA fee due 3/19/15
13/185,841 NOA fees due 3/24/15
11/908,891 NOA fee due 3/26/15
You guessing or willing to share basis of this inside information?
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
• Currently have 50 significant customers
with expressed interest to trial
• 20 Customer trials in queue; 7 customers
with dedicated R&D Programs "
Hopefully the letters send out explicitly explained that these are trials and cannot be inferred as intent to sell.
An appellate court win for Butamax.
Initially, the district court ruled for Gevo, granting its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of two Butamax patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 7,993,889 (’889 Patent) and 7,851,188 (’188 Patent). The district also denied both parties’ motions on literal infringement and reached split decisions on validity of the patents.
Butamax appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then vacated both the grant of Gevo’s motion for summary judgement of non-infringement and the denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment.
Gevo petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and in a single, swift decision known as a GVR, the Supremes granted the petition, vacated the Federal Circuit decision, and remanded for further proceedings.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/150302/gsen8-k.html
Form 8-K for GS ENVIROSERVICES, INC.
"On February 22, 2015 the Board of Directors elected Kevin Kreisler to serve as a member of the Board of Directors... Subsequent to the election of Kevin Kreisler to the Board, Jeffrey R. Hickman resigned from his position as a member of the Board and as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant. Mr. Hickman's resignation left Kevin Kreisler as the sole member of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors then appointed Kevin Kreisler to serve as the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer."
Another shell of this shell.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/duke-energy-wins-verdict-reversal-in-epa-lawsuit-over-indiana-power-plants.html
The 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
Judge 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.
http://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
http://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."
http://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
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/11995/nrel-refines-method-to-convert-lignin-to-nylon-precursor
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Old news. All this and a share is still worth less than a single sheet of toilet paper. Now that is a fact that you can use while on the commode.
GreenShift Receives Notices of Allowance on Three New Corn Oil Extraction Patents
ALPHARETTA, GA. — GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB:GERS) announced today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently issued Notice of Allowances for the following U.S. Pat. Application Nos.:
•13/450,997 titled “Methods of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the “’997 Patent Application”) on December 19, 2014;
•13/185,841 titled “Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery from Ethanol Production Byproducts” (the “’841 Patent Application”) on December 24, 2014; and,
•11/908,891 titled “Methods and Systems for Washing Ethanol Production Byproducts to Improve Oil Recovery” (the “’891 Patent Application”) on December 26, 2014.
The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.
The Summary Judgment issued on October 23, 2014 by the District Court in Indiana and ruled in favor of defendants on their motions for summary judgment alleging that the corn oil extraction patents issued to GS CleanTech were invalid, including US Pat. Nos. 7,601,858 and 8,168,037. As previously announced GreenShift intends to appeal the Summary Judgment decision. Under applicable standards, a patent is not invalid until and unless a final judgment of invalidity is rendered after all available appeals have been exhausted.
“We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”
Coverage of Allowed Claims
The allowed ‘997 Patent Application is a continuation application of US Pat. No. 7,601,858, and involves the concentration and mechanical processing of thin stillage to recovery at least a portion of the oil from the concentrate. The ‘891 Patent Application and the ‘841 Patent Application are continuation applications of US Pat. No 8,168,037. The allowed claims in the ‘841 Patent Application cover processes directed to evaporating thin stillage to reduce water content, recovering oil with a horizontal centrifugal three phase decanter, evaporating the concentrate to further reduce its moisture content, and mixing the evaporated concentrate with distillers wet grains. The allowed claims in the ‘891 Patent Application include processes directed to washing whole stillage with thin stillage to increase the oil content of the thin stillage, followed by concentration and recovery of oil.
The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.
Go to bed; it isn't working.
We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”
The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.
13/450,997 NOA fee due 3/19/15
13/185,841 NOA fees due 3/24/15
11/908,891 NOA fee due 3/26/15
Post a Comment