Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Cantor Colburn Settles their Issues, GERS' Patent Issues Remain

Cantor Colburn and Defendants had executed a confidential settlement agreement that is subject to certain conditions, and that closing of the settlement was expected within the next thirty days. CleanTech maintained that additional settlement issues remain that it will address after settlement between Cantor Colburn and Defendants is closed.

The parties therefore request that all deadlines in the above-captioned appeals continue to be stayed until February 14, 2018

See Here

SkunK

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what can Cantor Colburn be settling outside of the GERS settlement? Are they walking after they settle? Could this be for their legal fees? Were there defamation issues that we don't know about?

Almost seems like there was something brokered by the mediator that allowed for CC to get paid regardless of the final settlement.

I tied posting the other day that I predicted another delay since this has been going on so long. Never got published...

Looks like I am holding this for another 3 months unless Kevy can pull a rabbit out of his hat...

Robin said...

Yes, I can see your point but is Cantor Colburn settling outside of the GERS settlement? I did notice that once CC reaches a settlement with defendents that there are 'additional' settlement issues to be worked out. To me I take it that everything is connected.

And, since I'm no lawyer, I still am under the belief that legal companies representing such companies as GERS get paid on success of the case. Contigency?

A question: What if the the certain conditions between CC and the defendants are not met with success?

A lot of unknowns for sure but at least the filing show progress being made. And all the defendants were unopposed to the motion of stay. That speaks volumes, getting all those companies to agree on something.

Anonymous said...

can someone knowledgeable interpret this notice for me? Is Cantor Colburn settling is a good or bad news? Is it going to help reaching the final settlement or make it more complicated?

Anonymous said...

Cantor also became a defendant, accused of unclean hands in holding back information from the patent office, etc. Cantor used a separate law firm to settle the charges against them or to get a settlement with their accusers (settle out of court). This is (mostly) separate from the patent case, in that Cantor has a reputation to protect, which for a law firm is all they really have. Hopefully they can now pivot and move to settle the patent case.

nobody123789 said...

Mckinney found for the defendants and judged C&C to be guilty of inequitable conduct mostly based on misunderstanding the law associated with the on-sale bar. He determined that an offer to bench test their technology was an offer to purchase the IP.

There was an email that formed the basis of the offer to test that apparently was NOT submitted during discovery but emerged later that set Mckinney on this incorrect path. C&C's position was that the email was irrelevant to the proceedings and was not covered by the discovery order. Bottom line, IF the email was NOT relevant to the patent infringement litigation then there could be no inequitable conduct on C&C's part and IF bench testing did not violate the on-sale bar (the basis of McKinney's judgement) then the patents were valid.

When the USPTO reaffirmed the validity of the patents in the face of all the documents used in the proceeding they essentially agreed with C&C and GERS that bench testing did not violate the on-sale bar AND the email was not germane to the proceeding.

In response to USPTO actions ICM said, “The [patent office] does not determine the validity of issued patents—federal courts do,” http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/8049/hearing-set-for-patent-lawsuit-in-greenshift-corn-oil-case

In July 2016 the Federal Circuit Court of appeals confirmed (in another case) that bench testing did not violate the on-sale bar. The federal courts had spoken and as a result even ICM had to (internally) concede that C&C was not guilty of inequitable conduct AND GERS' patents were valid. I suspect that discussions about settlement started in earnest at that time.

The November 27, 2017 filing of a settlement with C&C must surely mean that the inequitable conduct claim will be resolved in C&C's favor. If that is correct the defendants are then agreeing that the on-sale bar had not been violated and the patents are valid.

Therefore, it is logical that the remaining settlement details that apply directly to GERS to be worked out involve monetary damages and new licensing agreements to employ GERS' technology.

In other words, we are waiting for the inevitable indication of capitulation -- the back royalties to be paid, their terms, and future license agreements.

It is all over but the shouting. We do not when, we do not not what publicity will follow and we have no idea what provisions (if any) will be made for the common shareholders to participate in the windfall. The settlement with C&C over their inequitable conduct was the lynch pin to generating this cascade of events.

Anonymous said...

I certainly hope your reading of events is correct. GERS's fate has proven however, to be brightest just before the storm. Let me poke the entrails with a stick and (for entertainment) see how else we can read these matters. Maybe C&C just wanted to protect the reputation of their firm and was willing to settle these matters at nearly any cost. Including paying settlement damages to the defendants. Hence the separate settlement. The proof is in the settlement cash, which would prove where this is headed. ICM is private and GERS has stopped filing, however any cash paid in or out has to be reported somewhere in the public filing of the many defendant public companies. Find that key and unlock the door. Find that nugget and you could push all in or run like a banshee rooster with its tail feathers on fire in the other direction.

nobody123789 said...

If your fears/suspicions are correct I seriously doubt that there would have been this long settlement process. They would have continued with the Federal Circuit appeal where they held almost all of the cards (only McKinney's ruling the main execution). I am not a blind devotee of GERS or KK. We have much to be concerned about relative to management, business acumen and how/if the common shareholders participate in a successful outcome -- but C&C abandoning GERS is not one of them. Remember, soon after the initial ruing C&C opted to accept a contingency fee of 15% instead of the usual billable hours fee and rebated a great deal of money to GERS to get this agreement. They are set up to reverse the inequitable conduct claim and cash-in big time. C&C is not going anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Sounds good to me. After about ten years and seeing our ship come in a few times, only to see its hull smashed against the rocks, forgive my bashfulness if I don't buy any horns and whistles quite yet.

Anonymous said...

CC owns no GERS common shares that I know of and neither does KK. Something tells me that after all this time, the preferred shareholders are the ones that will rake it in and the common shareholders that kept this afloat all these years will get nothing. At this point in time, I have thousands invested and hold what appear to be hundreds of thousands of shares of worthless stock. That is unless a miracle happens. More wait and see, I am holding to the end so don't screw us Kevin!

nobody123789 said...

Those fears could be well-founded. My interpretation that most of the tea leaves strongly indicate a windfall coming to GERS does not imply at all that the common shareholders will directly gain as a result. That is completely unknown. As a corollary, the only way that current common shareholders may profit is when the windfall number becomes public and the buying that will likely result BEFORE anyone knows how that will be distributed. Then again, KK could surprise the world.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron