Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Defendants make Accusations

1. The financial arrangement between Plaintiff and counsel, including the motivations behind counsel’s preparation and filing of a false affidavit with the Patent Office;

2. Plaintiff’s grant of hundreds of millions of shares to the named inventors of the patents-in-suit;

3. Plaintiff’s abrupt removal of the named inventors of the patents-in-suit (as well as Mr. Barlage, who Plaintiff should have named as an inventor (another act of inequitable conduct before the Patent Office)), from its board of directors shortly after the Court’s finding that the patents-in-suit are invalid;

4. How Plaintiff has used the patents-in-suit to extort the ethanol industry;

5. Plaintiff’s removal of money from the company in the shadow of this Court’s invalidity findings;

6. Why Plaintiff’s primary creditor agreed not to forbear in exchange for removal of people from its board of directors; and

7. Whether Plaintiff is depleting the company so that it won’t have any assets left to satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendants.

See Here 1460

SkunK


21 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
•13/185,841
•11/908,891

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.

nobody123789 said...

Looking at the 10K it seems that many of the accusations are correct.

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.

nobody123789 said...

Come on Kevin, using this blog to advance your scheme is not going to work any more. There are now under 150 accounts (number of persons even smaller) willing to hold your common shares. Call it a day and file BK.

Anonymous said...

You idiot! those will NEVER issue patents they are broke!

Optimistic said...

How do we know you are not working this site for the defendants?

Anonymous said...

All those far fetching smoke screen allegations will go away when GERS wins on appeal. The patents are valid, re-confirmed and enforceable. The judges decision will be overturned on appeal like so many other of his cases. Just may take a little time... Let's see what happens at the settlement conference in the end of May...

Anonymous said...

Smoke screen? They seem pretty valid to me if you bother reading 10K's.

Anonymous said...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/04/29/indiana-brothers-admit-million-biofuel-scheme/26571931/

A GeenShift Customer!

nobody123789 said...

Birds of a feather flock together?

Anonymous said...

like sheep

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...

needs to bring some value to his investors

Anonymous said...

He never has. It's all about YAGI.

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...

Blowing smoke. This one will hold. Looks like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and KK knows it. Probably why he converted into preferred shares; to protect himself from the inevitable bankruptcy filing. Common shareholders get nothing.

Anonymous said...

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...

Stuck in NO BID land AGAIN.

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

Anonymous said...

McKinney history of reversals. History repeats itself.

Anonymous said...

It sure does. No bid now and reverse split #6 is immanent.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron