Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

[nobody12378]

This is old (2010) but it provides important insights -- treble punitive damages in play as infringement would be willful, and back royalties (base line damages) would be extensive; covering more than 11 years of production.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/GreenShift+Provides+Litigation+Update%3b+Infringement+Not+Denied+by...-a0224697575

Infringement Was Not Denied

In its most recent pleading, prepared and filed by ICM on Cardinal Ethanol's behalf, Cardinal doesn't deny that its ICM-designed corn oil extraction system is infringing GreenShift's patent claims.

ICM's Claims Were Rejected

Cardinal and ICM appear to rely solely on the hope that the court will invalidate GreenShift's patents based entirely on information considered and rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO") prior to the issuance of GreenShift's patents. GreenShift believes that this argument is especially weak and that it must fail. Cardinal and ICM argue that GreenShift's inventions were obvious and unpatentable. That is simply not the case. ICM previously raised the information that it believed invalidated GreenShift's invention and failed - the PTO considered and rejected the materials raised by ICM prior to the issuance of GreenShift's first two patents in October 2009. Any producer that relies upon ICM's continued claims of invalidity does so at its own peril.

Royalties Are Accruing

GreenShift has a statutory right to reasonable royalties for every pound of corn oil extracted with GreenShift's technologies beginning as early as February 23, 2006, the publication date of GreenShift's first patent.