Saturday, April 11, 2015

Clarification

Defendants ask for Clarification 1455
See Here

SkunK

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

History of Judge Larry J. McKinney's misjudgments and mistakes which led to countless summary judgment reversals.

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

nobody123789 said...

You are whistling in a grave yard. No one hears you.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

The USPTO disagreed with the lower court's findings which led to Summary Judgment.

Not surprising. This scenario happens more often than one might think and is typically due to an improper interpretation or general lack of understanding of current patent law.

Going forward, expect to see an appeal resulting in a partial or possibly complete reversal. Judge LJM has a long history of being overturned.

Expect new lawsuits once the 11/908,891, 13/185,841 and 13/450,997 applications mature into patents.

Anonymous said...

Hey imbecile greenshit is broke! NO money. Those meaningless applications will NEVER issue patents. Even with billions more dilution they can't afford to pay the fees! IDIOT!

Anonymous said...

Greenshift’s acquisition of Aircycle Corporation

http://bostoncommons.net/2015/04/aircycle-corporation/

http://www.aircycle.com/

Anonymous said...

GERS is not broke, stop slandering the company. They have a good revenue stream and continue to service their debt. This is eventually turn around.

Mark this post douche!

nobody123789 said...

Sorry to burst your bubble with a few facts:

"The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company recorded income from operations of $768,362 for the year ended December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had about $590,000 in cash, and current liabilities exceeded current assets by about $39 million, about $16 million of which is due to current obligations convertible into Company stock. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern."

An analysis that compared the Q3 results with the entire year demonstrates that GERS was hemorrhaging cash faster than the Titanic took on water.

These facts are consistent with the definition of BROKE.

Anonymous said...

facts, tricky things.
Not to say GERS is not in a whirl of shift, cause they are. however half million cash is not bad for a company in this condition. The substantial doubt quote had been in GERS stuff for 15 years - so what? its just a legal mumbo in micro stocks. They are profitable by nearly 800K. Ten times earning would make them a 8Million dollar market cap. so you are not really making your point with your quote, thats all i am saying. court room sucks is all you need to say .

nobody123789 said...

Compare the Q3 to the 10K -- it is a disaster of cash loss. If this continues into Q1, which there is every reason to believe, the loss will be quite large and building. The 10K is padded by the the first nine months.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron