% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

GreenShift Corporation Message Board

  • slashnuts slashnuts Feb 26, 2014 10:51 AM Flag

    GERS Motion for Summary Judgment Should be Granted, Defendants Failed to Raise any Genuine Issues


    "In support of their invalidity challenges under 112, Defendants rely mostly on attorney argument and ignore the undisputed facts. Defendants allege that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid because (1) the term “substantially” is indefinite; (2) the heating step is not supported by the written description; and (3) mechanically processing a stream containing at least 15% or 30% moisture is not enabled. However, the undisputed facts clearly demonstrate that the Patents-in-Suit comply with each and every requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. Defendants have not raised any genuine issues of material fact and CleanTech’s motion for summary judgment under 112 should be granted."

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • All the bashing and patent infringing PEIX is the one that's down
      The difference between what I post and what the bashers post is clear.
      I post factual information from the courts and the USPTO, they post scam run run scam run.
      There is no doubt GERS is winning, and the defendants are losing. If the judge was ruling in the defendants favor, the bashers would be pointing it out. Since they're not able to do that, they're left with empty, meaningless posts that do nothing but eat up bandwidth.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • PEIX is being sued by GERS for patent infringement. PEIX is losing BTW, now facing Summary Judgment meaning GERS asked the judge to decide since there is overwhelming evidence PEIX has committed a crime. If the judge grants GERS' motion, the lawsuit will be over, PEIX will be forced to pay millions in damages including back royalties and court costs. PEIX will then have no choice but to either license GERS' patents or halt their illegal use of GreenShift's technology. If the judge rules, GERS will be instantly profitable, debt free, and the lawsuit will be over.
      From the evidence that's there, PEIX has already lost.
      Many if not all of the bashers on this board are directly tied to infringing companies being sued. They know their time is up.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Case 1:10-ml-02181-LJM-DML Document 1139 Filed 02/18/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 49520

      “You could get some fraction of the oil from a screw press [at 15% moisture], but that would not

      be a viable process because you would leave too much oil behind.) (MDN 1040-5, Ex. 4, Harris

      Depo., pp. 106-107, one could possibly use a plunger or pusher-type centrifuge on DDGS (which

      has less than 15% moisture), but that would not be his first choice; p. 114, 15% moisture does

      not make sense “unless you use the exotic pusher or plunger centrifuge.”) (MDN 1040-6, Ex. 5,

      Yancey Depo., pp. 131-32, believes you could press oil out of 15% water syrup, but not

      centrifuge) Thus, out in the real world, process engineers use machines, including centrifuges, to

      recover oil from materials with 15% moisture.3

      acknowledged that such low moisture streams may be difficult to process and further testified

      that centrifugation of a material with 30% moisture was probably easier than 15% moisture, but

      that does not invalidate the claims that include a 15% moisture range. (MDN 1040-23, Ex. 13,

      McKenna Depo., pp. 199-200)

      CleanTech’s expert Mr. McKenna

      Here there is no factual dispute that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the

      application would know how to mechanically process materials having 30% or 15% moisture.

      Defendants cannot meet their heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of validity, and

      CleanTech is entitled to a summary judgment that the Patents-in-Suit satisfy the enablement

      requirement of 35. U.S.C. § 112.


      Defendants have not raised any issues of disputed material fact regarding the validity of

      the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly CleanTech is entitled to summary


      Defendants seek to disavow their experts’ testimony by characterizing it as speculation, even though the experts

      never characterized their own testimony as such during their depositions. (MDN 1093, p. 55) Defendants cannot

      have it both ways: accepting their experts’ testimony when it allegedly supports their arguments and dismissing the

      testimony when it does not.


      Case 1:10-ml-02181-LJM-DML Document 1139 Filed 02/18/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 49521

      judgment that the Patents-in-Suit satisfy the definiteness, written description, and enablement

      requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

0.0005+0.0001(+25.00%)10:35 AMEDT