03/16/2020 | 166 | MOTION of Appellants Greenshift Corporation and GS Cleantech Corporation to extend the time to file a Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc until 04/15/2020 [Consent: unopposed]. Service: 03/16/2020 by email. [679137] [16-2231] [Steven Pokotilow] [Entered: 03/16/2020 01:45 PM] |
03/16/2020 | 167 ![]() | Bill of Costs for Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC and GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc.. Service: 03/16/2020 by email. [679255] [16-2231] This document is non-compliant. See Doc. No. [168]. [Michael Buchanan] [Entered: 03/16/2020 04:53 PM] |
03/17/2020 | 168 | NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: The submission of Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC and GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., Bill of Costs [167], is not in compliance with the rules of this court (see attached). Compliant document due on 03/24/2020. Unless ordered otherwise, the deadline for any responsive filing runs from service of the original version. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [679337] [JAB] [Entered: 03/17/2020 08:08 AM] |
03/17/2020 | 169 | ORDER filed granting motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing/en banc [166] filed by Appellants GS Cleantech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation. Petition for Rehearing due on or before 04/15/2020. By: Merits Panel (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [679400] [JAB] [Entered: 03/17/2020 10:07 AM] |
03/17/2020 | 170 ![]() | Bill of Costs for Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC and GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc.. Service: 03/17/2020 by email. [679441] [16-2231] [Michael Buchanan] [Entered: 03/17/2020 11:40 AM] SEE HERE SkunK |
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Motion for Rehearing
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Friday, December 20, 2019
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Synopsis
The defendants’ case is premised on an early ruling by the district court that a 2003 bench test demonstrated that the invention was ready for patenting; and, that our prosecution attorneys committed fraud by failing to submit the 2003 bench test results and other documents referencing inventive activities from 2003 in correspondence with the patent office.
The 2003 bench test failed. The centrifuge plugged up. The test was also performed on the equivalent of a bottle of ‘cold vinaigrette,’ far removed from the firehose of ‘hot salad dressing’ and other real world conditions under which concentrated thin stillage exists prior to separation and recovery. Yes, it is true that the inventors had an idea and conceptual vision for what needed to be done - as seen in the speculative drawing that they produced in 2003, but that was just foresight and experimentation was needed to confirm that their idea would work. Nobody had ever recovered oil from concentrated corn ethanol stillage before. The invention was not enabled and ready for patenting until and unless a subsequent test was conducted in an ethanol plant to confirm the parameters under which the process could work. That was the inventors’ belief at the time, that was the belief of our prosecution attorneys in preparing their filings with the patent office, and I would testify to that effect today. Those are the facts. They have never been presented to a jury.
The defendants’ fraud claim requires defendants’ claims to be simply taken as true, notwithstanding the lack of a jury trial - i.e., that the 2003 bench test was sufficient; that the 2003 letter was not sent in pursuit of an experimental use to confirm technical viability; and that the failed 2003 bench test and 2003 letter were therefore directly relevant to patentability. We do not believe any of that is true. Not then. Not now.
The court focused its questions on these points earlier today. They wanted our response as to how our former prosecution attorneys did not commit fraud in their disclosures to the patent office. Our attorney responded that there can be no fraud without specific intent to mislead the patent office, and that specific intent was not established by the record.
Our objective on appeal was to solicit a remand for jury trial on these very issues, and most importantly on the genuine issues of material fact which were ignored at the district court level involving the failed 2003 bench test and 2003 letter, among others. It’s too early to say if we achieved that objective today, but we are in the right.
We have delivered tremendous value to the ethanol industry. More than 90% of the industry uses processes covered by our patents today to displace more than 20 million barrels of fossil fuel and infuse more than $500 million per year of additional income into America’s rural communities. Such amounts equate to a total savings of more than 250 million barrels of fossil fuels and more than $5 billion in additional profit for the industry since inception. No known technology or process has come close to replicating those results for the industry. We will continue to vigorously pursue our rights regardless of today’s outcome.
Anonymous
December 3, 2019 at 3:17 PM
SkunK
The 2003 bench test failed. The centrifuge plugged up. The test was also performed on the equivalent of a bottle of ‘cold vinaigrette,’ far removed from the firehose of ‘hot salad dressing’ and other real world conditions under which concentrated thin stillage exists prior to separation and recovery. Yes, it is true that the inventors had an idea and conceptual vision for what needed to be done - as seen in the speculative drawing that they produced in 2003, but that was just foresight and experimentation was needed to confirm that their idea would work. Nobody had ever recovered oil from concentrated corn ethanol stillage before. The invention was not enabled and ready for patenting until and unless a subsequent test was conducted in an ethanol plant to confirm the parameters under which the process could work. That was the inventors’ belief at the time, that was the belief of our prosecution attorneys in preparing their filings with the patent office, and I would testify to that effect today. Those are the facts. They have never been presented to a jury.
The defendants’ fraud claim requires defendants’ claims to be simply taken as true, notwithstanding the lack of a jury trial - i.e., that the 2003 bench test was sufficient; that the 2003 letter was not sent in pursuit of an experimental use to confirm technical viability; and that the failed 2003 bench test and 2003 letter were therefore directly relevant to patentability. We do not believe any of that is true. Not then. Not now.
The court focused its questions on these points earlier today. They wanted our response as to how our former prosecution attorneys did not commit fraud in their disclosures to the patent office. Our attorney responded that there can be no fraud without specific intent to mislead the patent office, and that specific intent was not established by the record.
Our objective on appeal was to solicit a remand for jury trial on these very issues, and most importantly on the genuine issues of material fact which were ignored at the district court level involving the failed 2003 bench test and 2003 letter, among others. It’s too early to say if we achieved that objective today, but we are in the right.
We have delivered tremendous value to the ethanol industry. More than 90% of the industry uses processes covered by our patents today to displace more than 20 million barrels of fossil fuel and infuse more than $500 million per year of additional income into America’s rural communities. Such amounts equate to a total savings of more than 250 million barrels of fossil fuels and more than $5 billion in additional profit for the industry since inception. No known technology or process has come close to replicating those results for the industry. We will continue to vigorously pursue our rights regardless of today’s outcome.
Anonymous
December 3, 2019 at 3:17 PM
SkunK
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
After Oral Argument
12/03/2019 | 163 | Submitted after ORAL ARGUMENT by Mr. Steven B. Pokotilow, Esq. for GS Cleantech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation, Michael Buchanan for ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., Aemetis, Inc., Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC, Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Blue Flint Ethanol LLC, Bushmills Ethanol, Inc., Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLP, Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., Guardian Energy, LLC, Heartland Corn Products, Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, ICM, Inc., Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Lincolnway Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP, Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley LLC, Pacific Ethanol Stockton, Pacific Ethanol, Inc., Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, David J. Vander Griend, Western New York Energy, LLC and Adkins Energy LLC and Mr. John M. Weyrauch for Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Lincolnway Energy, LLC, ICM, Inc., Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC, David J. Vander Griend . Panel: Judge: Reyna , Judge: Wallach , Judge: Hughes. [653510] [JCP] [Entered: 12/03/2019 10:26 AM] SkunK Document 163 is not available for public. My guess is it is the prepared oral remarks for both sides, |
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Paper Copies Arrive
1/27/2019 | 162 | 6 paper copies of the Corrected Opening Response Brief with Supplemental Appendix [155] received from Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., Aemetis, Inc., Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC, Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Blue Flint Ethanol LLC, Bushmills Ethanol, Inc., Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLP, Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., Guardian Energy, LLC, Heartland Corn Products, Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, ICM, Inc., Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Lincolnway Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP, Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley LLC, Pacific Ethanol Stockton, Pacific Ethanol, Inc., Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, David J. Vander Griend and Western New York Energy, LLC. [652785] [CJF] [Entered: 11/27/2019 11:53 AM] This is a response to last Friday's request. SkunK |
Monday, November 25, 2019
Admin II
11/25/2019 | 161 | **TEXT ONLY** ORDER granting motion to withdraw attorney Stephen E. Underwood [160] filed by Appellants GS Cleantech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. This order has been issued without an attached document and is official and binding. [651914] [JAB] [Entered: 11/25/2019 08:44 AM] SkunK |
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Administration
11/22/2019 | 160 | MOTION of Appellants Greenshift Corporation and GS Cleantech Corporation to withdraw counsel Stephen Underwood [Consent: unopposed]. Service: 11/22/2019 by email. [651861] [16-2231] [Steven Pokotilow] [Entered: 11/22/2019 05:31 PM] SkunK |
Friday, November 22, 2019
Paper Copies
1/21/2019 | 159 | Notice to counsel for Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., Aemetis, Inc., Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC, Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Blue Flint Ethanol LLC, Bushmills Ethanol, Inc., Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLP, Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., Guardian Energy, LLC, Heartland Corn Products, Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, ICM, Inc., Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Lincolnway Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP, Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley LLC, Pacific Ethanol Stockton, Pacific Ethanol, Inc., Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, David J. Vander Griend and Western New York Energy, LLC: The record of this case indicates that the paper copies of the corrected brief with supplemental appendix [155] (see Fed. Cir. R. 30(a)(5) and Fed. Cir. R. 31(b)) have not been filed. The paper copies must be submitted promptly. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [651276] [JAB] [Entered: 11/21/2019 01:04 PM] The paper copies of the corrected brief . . . have not been filed. SkunK |
Friday, November 15, 2019
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Corrected Brief for Appellees
11/12/2019 | 155 | MODIFIED ENTRY: CORRECTED BRIEF FILED with SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX for Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., et al. Number of Pages: 148. Service: 11/12/2019 by email. Paper copies due 11/19/2019. [648541]--[Edited 11/12/2019 by JAB - compliance review complete] [Michael Buchanan] [Entered: 11/12/2019 10:31 AM] SkunK |
Friday, November 8, 2019
Non-Compliance of Appellees
11/08/2019 | 154 | NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: The submission of Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., et al., Corrected Response Brief [153], is not in compliance with the rules of this court (see attached). Compliant brief due 11/14/2019. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [647984] [MJL] [Entered: 11/08/2019 08:36 AM] SkunK |
Thursday, November 7, 2019
CORRECTED RESPONSE BRIEF
11/07/2019 | 153 | FILED from Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., Aemetis, Inc., Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC, Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Blue Flint Ethanol LLC, Bushmills Ethanol, Inc., Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLP, Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., Guardian Energy, LLC, Heartland Corn Products, Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, ICM, Inc., Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Lincolnway Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP, Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley LLC, Pacific Ethanol Stockton, Pacific Ethanol, Inc., Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, David J. Vander Griend and Western New York Energy, LLC. Title: CORRECTED RESPONSE BRIEF. Service: 11/07/2019 by email. (PENDING COMPLIANCE REVIEW) [647915] [16-2231] [Michael Buchanan] [Entered: 11/07/2019 04:42 PM] SkunK |
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Motion 148 granted
10/28/2019 | 152 | ORDER filed. The motion [148] is granted. The supplemental appendix and corrected response brief are due no later than 11/07/2019. In the brief, Appellees are directed to clearly indicate where the corrections are made. By: Merits Panel (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [645237] [MJL] [Entered: 10/28/2019 03:58 PM] SkunK Note: Motion 148 is in Wednesday post. 148 Motion of Appellees . . . to correct or supplement [Consent: unopposed]. . . . |
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Oral 3 Dec 2019
10/17/2019 | 147 | NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: Paper copies of Appellants GS Cleantech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation' Confidential Opening Brief [64] and Appellants' Response and Reply Brief [129] are not in compliance with the rules of this court (see attached). Compliant document due on 10/21/2019. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [642942] [CAB] [Entered: 10/17/2019 03:23 PM] |
10/18/2019 | 148 | MOTION of Appellees ACE Ethanol, LLC, Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc., Aemetis, Inc., Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC, Big River Resources Galva, LLC, Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC, Blue Flint Ethanol LLC, Bushmills Ethanol, Inc., Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLP, Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., Guardian Energy, LLC, Heartland Corn Products, Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, ICM, Inc., Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC, Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, Lincolnway Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP, Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley LLC, Pacific Ethanol Stockton, Pacific Ethanol, Inc., Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, David J. Vander Griend and Western New York Energy, LLC to correct or supplement [Consent: unopposed]. Service: 10/18/2019 by email. [643274] [16-2231] [Michael Buchanan] [Entered: 10/18/2019 06:04 PM] |
10/21/2019 | 149 | NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT. Panel: 1912E. Case scheduled December 3, 2019 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, NW Washington, DC 20439), Courtroom 402. Response to Notice of Oral Argument due: 11/15/2019. Please review the attached Notice. The response to notice of oral argument form can be found here. The Oral Argument Guide can be found here. [643437] [JAB] [Entered: 10/21/2019 01:24 PM] |
10/21/2019 | 150 | 6 paper copies of the Corrected Reply and Response Brief [103] received from Appellants GS Cleantech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation. [643710] [CJF] [Entered: 10/22/2019 09:36 AM] |
10/21/2019 | 151 | 6 paper copies of the Confidential Opening Brief [61] received from Appellants GS Cleantech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation. [643754] [CJF] [Entered: 10/22/2019 10:45 AM] |
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Accepted by the Court
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 |
Friday, August 16, 2019
GERS Response
It is simply unfair to Appellants for the Court to
delay this case each time one of the Defendants-Appellees’ counsel
may have a conflict . . .
See Here
SkunK
See Here
SkunK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)