Thursday, May 24, 2018

CLEANTECH’S REPLY . . .

. . . IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO FILE AN EXTENDED BRIEF UNDER CAFC RULE 28(C) .

See Here

SkunK

14 comments:

nobody123789 said...

I hope the Federal Circuit sees the circular reasoning being provided by the Appellees. The more they write the more they seem to make GERS' case.

Anonymous said...

I read the entire reply and in a effort to bolster the Exceptional and Extraordinary case claims, GERS used a summary of the facts of the case as presented by the defendants and this is a scary read. Appendix 1 really smells rotten...

Anonymous said...

I meant Exhibit A

nobody123789 said...

Would you elucidate on " ... really smells rotten ..."?

Anonymous said...

Simple, just read Exhibit A. I find it hard to believe, if true (Judge saw it to be true and ruled accordingly in his eyes), that Kevin could let all this happen in light of the fact he is an attorney. If true, it sounds like Winsness and Cantrell we running amuck and Kevin didn't have control of them. Which, in all honesty I find hard to believe but stranger things have happened with these guys over the years. I can't believe that Kevin, as an attorney, didn't know of or simply ignored the on-sale bar anniversary date. And I find it hard to believe they handed this off to Andrew Dorisio and never told them of the offer to sell from the previous year on July 31st. So it begs to ask, if an attorney (Dorisio) is guilty of malpractice (hypothetical), can a decision be overturned regarding the late filing past the on-sale bar deadline on these grounds? So messy, he said and he said...

Lastly, and it is hard to refute, the unscheduled meeting at Agri with Darryl Nelson is a little unsettling. Is he simply lying?

I am long and have been for years but you would have to agree this smells rotten...

Please enlighten me if you disagree and let me know specifically where you may think I am wrong...

nobody123789 said...

All of this has been reviewed by the USPTO; all of the filings used by McKinney to come to his judgement. They found that it did NOT invalidate the patents, that violation of the on-sale bar did NOT occur, and therefore all documents that attest to that were irrelevant.

For whatever reason, McKinney refused to allow the USPTO reassessment and did NOT agree to GERS' petition for his reassessment based on this critical position. Judge Stoll (on the Federal Circuit who appears to be handling the pre-appeal motions) worked in the USPTO for years and will likely have a different assessment of the value of their opinion.

Frankly, what either side states to defend their position is skewed in their favor and cannot be accepted. I would not get worked up or excited by whatever either side states -- they are only legal "truths" in my eyes. The USPTO position along with the Federal Circuit ruling on bench testing versus an offer to sell in July 2016, are objective and unbiased insights as to how the outcome will unfold.

It is useful to see how/if the motions and filings at various levels hang together -- i.e are they consistent. The appellees appear to fail this evaluation. In any event, one cannot count on a single filing to mean anything. They all must be integrated and evaluated in total.

But if you are long, a GERSlander, that thinks that something "stinks" in GERSland, then perhaps you should exited stage-left and attempt to recover any profit that you have, before your fears become fact (IF THEY DO).

Anonymous said...

I gave a very objective commentary, voiced my concerns and trust me, I am long. I am also trying to recover my losses, not "recover any profits" as you state. I appreciate your assessment and recap, let's hope that Judge Stoll the new panel of judges, if it gets that far, sees it that way too...

nobody123789 said...

"... if it gets that far". I hope that you are not suggesting that another round of settlement discussions are in the offing. We have painfully learned that this was just part of the delaying tactics used by the defendants and that GERS/C&C were led astray by being enticed by the defendants into that nine plus month delaying charade. (By the way, why would the defendants even suggest a settlement if the facts and details that you read in Exhibit A were "rock solid"?).

No, we must bite the bullet and ride this long torturous journey out in the Federal Circuit. That result is in all of our interests with the widest industry implications.

Anonymous said...

Nope, wrong read... I was not suggesting that!

What are your comments on Prevost?

nobody123789 said...

I am certainly no expert in the legal components of this case. But I can read and there are apparent inconsistencies the Federal Circuit will need to sort out.

For example, http://www.greenshift.com/news/item/4

Anonymous said...

Steven Pokotilow of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan is an excellent litigator who's incredibly knowledgeable and experienced.

nobody123789 said...

Any one have any idea how Stroock, Stroock & Lavan are being paid? Are they on contingency? Are they being paid by GERS via billable hours and where has that cash come from? Is C&C footing the bill as part of their contingency agreement with GERS? It does not appear that GERS has been diluting to create cash for this purpose. Another mystery in a layer of mysteries.

Anonymous said...

They may be riding on the promise of a huge win for GERS...

Anonymous said...

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/05/31/1514744/0/en/Attis-Industries-Acquires-Clean-Technology-Licensing-Business.html

 
Free Blog CounterTamron