Friday, May 15, 2015

1Q

I expect the 1Q today, near the end of the business day.
Just my best guess.  Last year it was May 16th, Previous two years it was the 15th.  If not, we will see the automatic extension request in its place. You will see it here first.

SkunK

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New application filed 14/661,369

New patent to issue 05/19/2015 Patent # 9034954

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.



•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.

Anonymous said...

My crystal ball says "no cash".

nobody123789 said...

I suspect that there will be a hint of a BK filing for the first time -- ever.

nobody123789 said...

Its bad very bad. Don't read if you faint of heart.

nobody123789 said...

200 million shares diluted in 10 trading days without market sales.

Anonymous said...

Diversification is important to mitigate the risk that we may not prevail in our ongoing patent infringement litigation. In October 2014, the District Court in Indiana ruled in favor of the defendants on their motions for summary judgment alleging that our corn oil extraction patents were invalid, including US Pat. Nos. 7,601,858 and 8,168,037. In December 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed three new corn oil extraction patent applications (U.S. Patent Application Nos.: 11/908,891, 13/185,841 and 13/450,997). Each application was examined and considered patentable by a different patent examiner and after each had considered the summary judgment decision. We cannot speak to the significance of the conflicting determinations, however, 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, and we will appeal the summary judgment ruling at the appropriate time. Nevertheless, diversification of our revenue mix is key goal for 2015.

Anonymous said...

We invented, developed, and commercialized technologies that integrate into the back-end of existing dry mill corn ethanol plants to extract and recover a historically-overlooked natural resource – inedible crude corn oil, a valuable feedstock for use in the production of advanced carbon-neutral liquid fuels and other biomass-derived alternatives to fossil fuel-based products. We estimate that over 80% of the U.S. dry mill ethanol industry is producing corn oil using at least one of the inventions claimed in our issued extraction patents. That adoption rate corresponds to an estimated industry-wide output capable of offsetting more than about 20 million barrels of fossil fuel-derived crude oil per year, while saving trillions of cubic feet per year of natural gas, eliminating tens of millions of metric tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions, and infusing more than an estimated $1 billion per year of increased income into the corn ethanol industry – the foundation of North America’s renewable fuel production capability.

Anonymous said...

Those are globally-meaningful gains. And they are repeatable. To that end, we have developed a portfolio of new patented and patent-pending technologies capable of significantly expanding on our work to date in the ethanol industry. Those technologies involve new uses and products for extracted corn oil as well as other components of various ethanol process streams. We are also actively evaluating diversification opportunities, including applications of our technologies in other industries and potential acquisitions of companies with assets, customers, operations or other resources that are strategic to the commercialization of our technologies in targeted industries.

Anonymous said...

Those are globally-meaningful gains. And they are repeatable. To that end, we have developed a portfolio of new patented and patent-pending technologies capable of significantly expanding on our work to date in the ethanol industry. Those technologies involve new uses and products for extracted corn oil as well as other components of various ethanol process streams. We are also actively evaluating diversification opportunities, including applications of our technologies in other industries and potential acquisitions of companies with assets, customers, operations or other resources that are strategic to the commercialization of our technologies in targeted industries.

Anonymous said...

Are there really idiots out there hanging on to there nuts hoping to get excitement here? Join the ranks of cross-dressing. That is all that is going on here; being one thing and trying to look like another.

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...

Reality is starring at you in the face. There are valid reasons why this junk trades at .0001. Open your brain. Your a tool, nothing more. Toxic financiers are here to feed on you. Period.

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.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron