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

Pacific Ethanol, Inc. Message Board

  • slashnuts slashnuts Feb 2, 2013 11:54 PM Flag

    PEIX Infringing With ICM's AOS.....GERS


    ICM has been wrong about it all..

    "ICM continues to believe that under a proper interpretation of the patents' claims, the Tricanter® Oil Separation System does not infringe GreenShift's patents."

    Well NEWS FLASH, the patent's claims have just been interpreted. ICM was dead wrong with what they "believed". Read it for yourself...

    They lost in a land slide on every claim. ICM was wrong about the claim interpretation and wrong about "AOS" not infringing GERS patents claims.

    ICM tried to get this case on their "home turf", so they filed suit against GERS in an attempt to have a trial in Kansas. ICM filed less than one day before GERS sued them. That stunt didn't work either, the case is in Indiana.

    ICM went on to say..."There is substantial evidence not before the USPTO and not yet presented to the federal courts that impacts the validity of the GreenShift patents."

    This "substantial evidence" ICM claimed, has now been reviewed by the USPTO and presented to the court. The USPTO reafirmed GERS patents are valid and issued the 484 patent even after considering the so called "substantial evidence".

    ICM claimed there was "tons of prior art", namely prevost. The court disagreed with that too. Everything ICM "said" has been wrong. ICM sais the AOS doesn't infringe but it does. PEIX is liable and other infringers have already confirmed that ultimatly, the ethanol producer is responsible..

    The Court disagrees.
    "The Defendants (ICM) contend that the statement “as claimed” in the underlined portion of the second explanation is a clear disavowal of claim scope as to all claims of the ‘858 patent and requires the concentrate or syrup after the oil recovery step to be substantially free of oil. The Court disagrees."

    "With respect to the absolute percentages advocated by the Defendants’(ICM), the Court concludes that the argument improperly seeks to import limitations from the specification into the claims.

    First, the Defendants cannot point to any language in the claims, the specification or the prosecution history that limit the substantially oil free limitation to the quantities listed in Figure 2 of the ‘858 patent family. THER SIMPLE IS NONE.

    The claims, as recited above, are completely devoid of any reference to numerical quantities.

    "The court cannot conclude that these references limit all the claims of the '858 Patent or the other claims that do not specifically include the limitation in the remaining patents in the family."

    Similarly, there is no numerical reference for the content of oil in the post-recovery syrup stream by the patentees in the prosecution history, and the Defendants could not point to any.

    Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
3.22-0.02(-0.62%)Feb 12 4:00 PMEST