| 08/19/2019 | 146 | The following conflict dates submitted by Attorney John M. Weyrauch for Appellees Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, ICM, Inc., Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., David J. Vander Griend, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP, Guardian Energy, LLC, Western New York Energy, LLC, Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC and Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley LLC have been accepted by the court: 10/01/2019, 10/02/2019, 10/03/2019, 10/04/2019, 11/04/2019, 11/05/2019, 11/06/2019, 11/07/2019, 11/08/2019. [629260] [JAB] [Entered: 08/19/2019 01:56 PM] December See Here Wrong See Here SkunK |
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Accepted by the Court
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I thinks it's true... that is, that lawyers eat their own children...
Ol Willy was right when he wrote about lawyers.
Welcome to sometime in 2020...
When will we see the updated filings? With all this supposed good news, we are stuck at $.05.
Is this the same attorney that complained Cleantech was dragging it out with delays? His Oregon client is also accused of stealing inventions. How do these guys sleep at night?
The Defendants Lies, Manipulation & The Court's Misjudgments...
There's so many examples where the Court made obvious errors by accepting the defendant's lies as the gospel truth. Over the next few weeks, I intend to make a series of posts pointing out the many mistakes that must be reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Today, I will be exposing the hypocrisy of the defendant's low moisture claims where they convinced the Court a centrifuge can not recover oil from syrup with moisture below 40%. (Despite proof it works for ICM below 30%).
Here's what defendant's claimed:
Quote:
A Centrifuge Cannot Recover Oil From Syrup With A Moisture Content Below 40%
The undisputed facts demonstrated that
a centrifuge cannot recover oil from syrup at the low moisture content
claimed and, therefore, those claims were inoperative and not enabled.
The court’s determination that “CleanTech’s expert [Dr. Eckhoff]
clearly stated that a centrifuge cannot be used to recover oil from syrup with a moisture content of 30% or below; rather, the limit was 40%” was well supported.
Appellees’ experts agreed. And Winsness concluded that
syrup with a moisture content of 30% was too challenging to centrifuge
because it would have the consistency of a thick paste and it was not
cost effective to design a system to recover oil from syrup at a range of 15-30% moisture content.
The court’s finding that the moisture content range was not fully
enabled was correct and should be affirmed...
Undisputed facts? Lie after lie followed by more lies...
Eckhoff never said it wouldn't work at 30% or below. What he actually said was
Quote:
"In general, 40-60% is preferred for biological systems. I don't know at what % moisture it won't work.
Defendant's own expert, Yancey, opined with the following statement:
Quote:
“moisture levels in the 30-90% range would be preferable for centrifugation of thin stillage concentrates.” Yancey
Their own expert testified 30-90% moisture would be preferred yet defendants claim he "agreed" 40% is the limit.
Defendant's make another bold faced lie about Winsness' statement claiming he said it was too challenging to centrifuge 30% syrup. Here's what he actually said:
Quote:
Winsness testified that, when he prepared a 30%-moisture syrup, it was “a flowable stream, which can be centrifuged.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fvG4t0Rm6CRrN0wQGugSm8x5AmC8yW0-/view
Two experts and the inventor testified below 40% works, yet the Court came to the following conclusion:
Quote:
The district court invalidated the “30%” moisture claims, because it found "there is simply no testimony from any expert that . . . a centrifuge will recover oil from syrup with a moisture content below 40% and there is no specific disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill . . . to practice the invention below that
threshold.”
How could the Court get it so ass backwards claiming there is simply no testimony from any expert that a centrifuge will recover oil from syrup with moisture below 40%? Two experts and the inventor testified to the contrary.
Adding insult to injury the Court's following claim is also patently false:
Quote:
"there is no specific disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill . . . to practice the invention below that threshold.”
In 2011, Defendant ICM filed for a patent that centrifuges oil from syrup with a moisture content below 30%.
Quote:
1. A method comprising: dewatering a bio-oil process stream from a biomass processing facility with a mechanical processor to produce a de-oiled process stream and an emulsion concentrate
2.The method of claim 1 wherein the process stream is a concentrated stillage having a moisture content of about 5% by weight, up to less than 30% by weight and the de-oiled process stream is de-oiled concentrated stillage.
4.The method of claim 1 wherein the mechanical processor is a centrifuge
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/US-8192627-B2?ft=true
It's important to note that centrifuging oil from low moisture syrup works because defendants claim Prevost is prior art. It's only prior art if they convinced McKinney that the "15% water" claim was an obvious mistake, which they did. McKinney substituted what was written "water" for "fat" giving it the exact opposite meaning. Even though Prevost, in the same application, teaches centrifuging DDGS and ICM teaches less than 30% centrifuging works.
Prevost suggests centrifuging oil from DDGS with a moisture content as low as 10%.
Quote:
"The dried distillers grains can be subjected to an oil removal step.. Non-limiting examples of oil removal techniques that can be used include centrifugation, pressing with and without the use of a solvent, and solvent extraction without the use of pressing."
Prevost also disclosed using a centrifuge on syrup with less than 15% moisture.
Quote:
19. The process of claim 12 wherein the thin stillage stream is conducted to an evaporator to produce a syrup stream containing less than about 15 wt. % water, which syrup stream is itself conducted to an oil removal stage wherein at least of the oil is removed from the syrup.
20. The process of claim 19 wherein the oil is removed from the syrup by centrifugation to produce a mixture of oil and water stream.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040087808
Multiple inventors, experts, and even defendant ICM all disclosed centrifuging oil from syrup below 40%. Yet the Court ruled it wasn't so.
What a travesty of justice! There's no debating the proceeding. These findings must be reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Good Luck To All!$!$
They sleep on "their pillow" filled with freshly laundered Benjis.
Here are a few observations...
Today is September 3rd, 2019 and we have yet to see any updated filings.
Today is September 3rd, 2019 and we have yet to see any share price appreciation from all the slashnuts Attis hype.
Today is September 3rd, 2019 and the share price sits below $.05
Today is September 3rd 2019 and there is no end in sight for the lawsuits
Today is September 3rd and we have not seen any updates of comments from our friend Kevin. You know Kevin, the guy supposedly looking out for us.
Optimism about the outcome in the Federal Circuit is justified. However, that is just one battle -- not the war.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol29/iss1/3/
Post a Comment