Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Not sure how accurate this profile is on zoominfo, shows $7 mil revenue for Framepool AG. http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/company?companyId=27396289&targetid=profile
CEO has stated no R/S. CEO is into organic growth this is the real deal in the sub-penny land. This should be some ride upward over time.
Boo-yaa. This is headed north my friend.
Also a bit about Emaji on the "Horror Film Collection" page on the Global Media Website:
...The Company will partner with Emaji, Inc. (OTC: EMJI) to finance and co-produce proven franchises with built-in audience recognition to create stories that find and connect with its viewers worldwide.
The first two franchise assets have been secured by the Company’s partner: werewolf saga The Howling and StrangeLand, the tale of schizophrenic cult-horror favorite Captain Howdy. Several more are in active discussion...
My god. Give the man some time. He is working on getting the company going, that takes some time. From the tweets, I feel he/emaji have been more than generous in general/directional information since Jan 1. Business plans take a minute, news of substance takes as long as it takes to work deals, etc. I much prefer a level headed approach (such as we have seen from the new CEO) than a smattering of updates without substance. From all I have seen he is handling the situation right so far, this shows his character/acumen. Just my opinion. Rage on!
I bailed today, cut loose the 60K I held, someone else can give it a good home. GLTA, enjoyed following the good DD and banter exchanged on this board.
I had a 7500 .054 AON bid in since this AM, yet 15K was sold for .051? My bid was greater, why was a lower sell made?
Does PEIX have a relationship with ICM, hopefully not. It seems many of the ethanol companies which have made the poor choice of using ICMs infringing systems for corn oil extraction have a strong link, via ownership and previous equipment sales to ICM. I hope PEIX makes the right choice.
Agreed, simple economics. When will GERS close the tap. Until the tap is closed or demand eats up diluted shares and real sells the PPS fails us.
Agreed. I would read this statement as $1.6 million TOTAL for 2012. Would be nice if it was an installment figure, but that would be a puzzling way of putting it. I think the point of the statement is to say that YAGI will not have the opportunity to dilute $1.6 million of GERS shares in 2012, thanks to GERS cash payments.
A Cleantech IP Litigation Analysis Power Point with a brief mention of Greenshift. Study speaks to trends in this arena.
Here is the Link:
http://www.lesusacanada.org/docs/ceem/cleantechiplitigationtrends.pdf
Corn Oil v. DDGs Article. (ADM Corn Oil?)
My question after reading this is who supplied Archer Daniels with Corn Oil Extraction Equip if they do in fact have it?
http://biofuelschat.com/topics/push-ethanol-producers-corn-oil-raises-concerns-ddgs?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=push-ethanol-producers-corn-oil-raises-concerns-ddgs&wpmp_switcher=mobile
Push By Ethanol Producers Into Corn Oil Raises Concerns Over DDGs
March 20th, 2012 by biofuelschat
Push By Ethanol Producers Into Corn Oil Raises Concerns Over DDGs
A push by U.S. ethanol companies into corn oil is starting to give the livestock industry indigestion.
Corn oil, which is used both for cooking oil and to make biodiesel fuel, has emerged over the last year as a lucrative niche product for ethanol producers looking to add new revenue at a time of weak returns. Corn-oil production, though, comes with a downside: extracting the oil cuts into the fat content of the ethanol industry’s major byproduct–distillers dried grain.
The yellow, powdery substance known as DDGs is ubiquitous in the feed rations for cattle, hogs and poultry. Yet extracting corn oil makes DDGs less effective at helping animals grow ahead of slaughter.
Researchers said concerns over the decreasing DDG fat content are just starting to emerge. Livestock producers could start to reduce their use of DDGs in favor of soybean meal, analysts and livestock nutritionists say.
As corn-oil extraction “becomes more widespread, livestock producers, particularly of hogs, will begin to shift feeding back to meal,” said Don Roose, president of U.S. Commodities, a Des Moines, Iowa-based brokerage that advises both livestock producers and ethanol plants.
Prices for soy meal hit six-month highs last week, rising on concerns over global supplies in the face of a disappointing South American soybean crop. The soy product pulled back Tuesday, recently trading $5.60, or 1.5%, lower at $365.30 a short ton at the Chicago Board of Trade.
University researchers and animal nutritionists across the Midwest said they are hearing concerns from cattle and hog producers about DDGs and are trying to determine the effects of corn oil production on the nutritional value of DDGs. Researchers at large state universities from Nebraska to Illinois to Minnesota all plan to release findings in the weeks and months ahead.
So far, demand for DDGs has held up, said Steve Markham, head DDG merchandiser for farmer co-op CHS Inc., the nation’s biggest marketer of the feed.
He said exports to Asia have climbed, with several major shipments recently. Still, Markham acknowledged that a large international customer complained about the falling fat content in DDGs during a recent meeting with CHS executives.
Many hog producers in the U.S. and abroad have just gotten used to DDGs, with supplies exploding in recent years as ethanol production surged. The changes in DDGs for livestock producers are “kind of throwing them a curve ball,” said Jay O’Neil, agricultural economist with Kansas State University.
Most of the industry’s largest ethanol companies–including Valero Energy Corp. (VLO), Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc. (GPRE) and privately held POET LLC–have retrofitted plants in the past year to produce corn oil.
Valero spokesman Bill Day said the company, which extracts corn oil at two of its Iowa plants, actually has seen a recent jump in demand for DDGs. He explained that buyers have become dissatisfied with rival suppliers who are more aggressive about corn oil output, producing DDGs with less fat than what Valero sells.
Corn oil provides a hefty margin for ethanol producers because costs, after the initial investment in equipment, are low. A backlash from livestock producers is unlikely to cause plants to rethink their corn-oil strategy. Ethanol margins have weakened due to slow demand growth and high corn prices.
Since the start of 2011, corn futures at the Chicago Board of Trade are up 5.5% and well above historical averages, while ethanol futures are down 1.8%.
Still, few expect ethanol producers to sacrifice corn oil for DDG.
Remember too, a lot of people are getting a bit restless. The are other stocks out there. People are selling in GERS to make money in other places. So those that cry dilution need to account for restless GERS investors as well. The attraction of quick money elsewhere causes selloffs.
Summary judgement could be a possibility as well.
Intellectual Prop Blog - Greenshift Post
See here: http://www.iniplaw.org/
Here is the article/blog:
Indianapolis, IN -Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has allowed an additional patent to be added to a complex patent infringement suit over Ethanol byproducts. The plaintiff in this case, GS CleanTech Corporation of New York, New York had requested to amend its complaint to add infringement claim regarding patent no. 8,008,516, which has beenPatent Diagram.bmp issued by the US Patent Office, to the lawsuit. As orgininally filed, CleanTech had filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging that twenty-two defendants had infringed patent no. 7,601,858, Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystemsTITLE.
The court describes the '516 patent as a continuation of the '858 patent and directed to the same technology. The '516 patent was issued by the US Patent Office on August 30, 2011. Court found that Cleantech's motion to amend did not involve undue delay, bad faith or a dilatory motive. The court found that adding the '516 patent "serves the goal of furthering the efficient adjudication of the case because the '516 and '858 patents are directed to similar technology and involve similar claim terms." Three defendants objected to the amendment of the complaint, however, the court did not find any of the objections sufficient to prevent the amendment of the complaint.
As we blogged in October 2011, Judge McKinney has already held a Markman hearing: Indiana Court issues Markman Ruling in GS Cleantech v. Big River for Ethanol Processing Patents.
Practice Tip: The litigation over the '858 patent has been pending for several years and involves many parties. This is a very complex case from a procedural standpoint. While the Markman ruling has already been issued, the court's order pointed out that the discovery process has not been started.
Continue reading "Southern District Allows CleanTech to Amend Complaint to Add Patent to Ethanol Patent Litigation" »
Posted In: Civil Procedure, New Decisions, Patent Claim Construction, Patent Infringement, U.S. Supreme Court
Posted by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC | Permalink | Email This Post
Big picture thought...
ICM is deep into the ethanol industry.
If they go bankrupt, the ethanol companies will have to pay.
Thus they could go bankrupt as well, which would adversely effect the ethanol industry in the USA.
Therefore, the judge may massively pressure some type of settlement?
GPRE Corn Oil Update from their 10K
Corn Oil Production Segment
Green Plains initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010. By September 30, 2011, corn oil extraction equipment was deployed at all nine of the Company's ethanol plants. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company produced 31.9 million pounds of corn oil generating operating income of $9.0 million, compared to 5.0 million pounds and $0.9 million, respectively, for the fourth quarter of 2010. For the full year of 2011, the Company produced 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010.
A few thoughts from Q3 2011
From the 10Q Q3 2011
A couple of interesting paragraphs as I re-read some of Q3 2011:
In addition, future results may be improved by the impact of event-driven systems
integration contracts as we have recently experienced a significant increase in interest for our engineering and other services in connection with the design, construction, integration and modification of corn oil extraction systems and other new systems for existing and prospective licensees.
Mr. Farrish's appointment may have something to do with offering new systems for customers?
Also, here is a dose of reality, remember litigation isn't cheap. When Greenshift hopefully wins in court it will be worth it, however the legal road is a toll road, and the longer you're on it the more costly it is. Greenshift reminds us all of that below.
As discussed further below, despite producing nominal net income during the third quarter of 2011, it is unlikely that we will generate pre-tax profit for the full year ended December 31, 2011 after excluding the positive impact of non-recurring income earned during 2011. However, we believe that the license agreements we have executed to date will provide us with sufficient recurring revenue to transition to pre-tax profit on an annualized basis by the end of 2011, depending on the amount of corn oil produced by our licensees, the market price for corn oil, and the extent to which we incur additional costs in our litigation for infringement of our patents.
Just watched the Greenshift spot on my tv. I was struck with the fact that I was actually hearing the name Greenshift coming through my tv speakers. Outstanding! Also, what I loved hearing in the spot and what will stick with business minded individuals is the six month ROI. That is truly rare and exceptional. Kudos Greenshift.
Cardinal is idemnified by ICM, however if ICM loses and cannot pay the damages Cardinal will have to pay a portion of the damages as a listed defendant. GERS, was smart and went after all associated parties that it deemed liable for infringement.
As a listed defendant Cardinal could find themselves having to shell out big $$$ if ICM cannot (ie. ICM is liquidated).
So at some point if Cardinal thinks that ICM cannot win this case, and projects damages awarded to GS Cleantech then they may have incentive to settle. It's all in the numbers.
There are a lot contractual agreements here, that always makes things interesting.
I agree we need a settlement sooner rather then later, as common shareholders. I do think there will be a settlement, the question to me is when.
I could see several if not all of the ethanol companies settling, one after the next (domino effect). ICM may not settle at all however. But if they do not, they will be the only ones left holding the bag and expose themselves to maximum risk.
I agree. Once the etrade shares come online I think many will sell. It's too bad, I don't blame anyone that does. I'll have to make that decision too.
Last years q3 was due the 15th and released on the 22nd. So I would expect the same? Also, there was no change in ticker symbol last year, so to think that will will receive an "E" on the end of GERSD is highly speculative and not a sound conclusion in my opinion. FYI -See Edgar to get a good look at past release dates
Before jumping to too many conclusions I would ask a few questions.
Is the share dividend based upon pre-split holdings or post-split holdings? I would assume post-split?
Are the dividend shares coming from the common share pool or from a preferred class?
I think it means share holders of record prior to Nov 11 will receive a dividend of 1 share for every 1000 they hold/held.
According to statistics however, most patent infringement cases are settled at some point. When will they (or just one) settle, is the question that is worthwhile.
Bloomberg radio quoted a cedar rapids, ia news report this AM that for the first time in history more corn was being used for ethanol than for feedstock.
Mondays earnings, here we go!
Wow, no wonder they don't have an investor relations department.
Agreed Jim
My reading is (this is just my opinion):
GERS is the Licensor
ADRN is the Licensee
GERS is allowing ADRN to the use of GERS technologies. Just as they would license any other company in a non-exclusive agreement. This agreement is dated to 2009, might be tax or business or legal significance for that.
ADRN does not appear to gain in the ownership of the patents.
ADRN will not directly gain in litigation awards. As the litigation was initiated and paid for by GERS.
I would see this licensing as a means for ADRN to move ahead with business and potentially secure outside investment, as it gives them the power of GERS technology (patented & still under developement).
I don't see an outright threat to GERS, as they still maintain a clear licensor position.
Just my opinion however.
Interesting Patent "Green Tech" Article - Old
Our lawsuit is directly mentioned
http://www.nacleanenergy.com/?action=article&id=8407
Green Tech IP: Pitfall & Profits
By George Snyder
Today’s successful business enterprise is tech-savvy, nimble, and green. Whether satisfying consumer demand for renewable energy, or for environmentally friendly products and services, a modern enterprise stays informed about government regulations concerning the environment, values observance of voluntary environmental standards, and strives for technological compliance with both. This can be an integral part of presenting a positive image, but is not the only benefit of green awareness. When a business enterprise spends millions on renewable energy pursuits, or to develop new green products or services, the green tech they embody is a highly valuable asset. There is a real-world need for the enterprise to guard its investment against appropriation by others, through patenting that green tech.
Patent rights on green tech have become highly desirable as they can improve the bottom line by warding off rival copycats, or by affording opportunities for licensing. However, the trend toward green tech patents is a two-edged sword because others are also procuring them. Therefore, before introducing its own green tech into the marketplace, a business enterprise would be well advised to search for others’ patents and determine if the green tech is “clear” of infringing anyone else’s rights.
By George Snyder
Today’s successful business enterprise is tech-savvy, nimble, and green. Whether satisfying consumer demand for renewable energy, or for environmentally friendly products and services, a modern enterprise stays informed about government regulations concerning the environment, values observance of voluntary environmental standards, and strives for technological compliance with both. This can be an integral part of presenting a positive image, but is not the only benefit of green awareness. When a business enterprise spends millions on renewable energy pursuits, or to develop new green products or services, the green tech they embody is a highly valuable asset. There is a real-world need for the enterprise to guard its investment against appropriation by others, through patenting that green tech.
Patent rights on green tech have become highly desirable as they can improve the bottom line by warding off rival copycats, or by affording opportunities for licensing. However, the trend toward green tech patents is a two-edged sword because others are also procuring them. Therefore, before introducing its own green tech into the marketplace, a business enterprise would be well advised to search for others’ patents and determine if the green tech is “clear” of infringing anyone else’s rights. Otherwise, there could be crippling liability costs (damages, attorney’s fees, etc.). Two recent matters are illustrative.
In one, a company named TDM America secured patent rights concerning a green tech solution to protect the technology from unauthorized use. Unlicensed US government contractors then commenced green tech operations to remove and process contaminated materials from navigation channels, which TDM perceived as an infringement of its patent rights. TDM sued to block the accused operations and preserve its technology’s exclusivity.
In contrast, consider the plight of several companies that commercialized technology for extracting corn oil from “whole stillage,” a by-product of manufacturing ethanol from corn. Another entity, GS Clean Tech, commenced litigation against them for infringement of its patent rights. Even though making ethanol production more lucrative, thereby encouraging use of ethanol as a green tech solution, the defendant-companies were sued by an entity seeking to exploit its investment in patents.
So, how do businesses go about pursuing patent rights to secure green tech advances and preserve their asset value? And, since good intentions obviously do not forestall litigation, how does one mitigate the risk of being embroiled in a lawsuit?
Patent procurement
The first step in capturing portable green tech is to institute an “audit” function that closely monitors innovations on an enterprise-wide basis. Personnel involved in research, consulting, sales engineering, and the like can be recruited to provide reports on green tech solutions that are devised in-house. The scope of their reporting should be inclusive, leaving assessment and decision on what should be pursued to an individual or committee charged with managing innovation.
Those advances, which are earmarked as potentially significant, can then be subjected to searching of the patent and technological literature to determine whether the innovation is clearly un-patentable. Depending on the results, a patent application—including a detailed description of the invention and claims legally defining its outer boundaries—can be prepared. It is a good idea to work out a theory of invention-patentability, and present the theory in the application right off the bat. In doing this, rather than waiting to respond to arguments against patentability raised by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), one can frame the terms of the debate in a favorable way. In general, it is helpful at the threshold to develop a rationale for the invention’s difference from preceding technology—for instance, the invention enables “clean” practice, without any substantial loss of performance in comparison to conventional technology. Of course, it is important in extolling the superiority of the green invention not to indict the applicant’s prior conventional technology in a manner that might create liability for the latter’s utilization.
The USPTO’s examination process typically takes anywhere from three to five years in the normal course, and there is no guarantee of success. The process can sometimes be expedited pursuant to protocols in the USPTO for handling green inventions but, again, there is no guarantee. Either way, however, staying the course can yield a patent that preserves significant competitive advantage conferred by innovative green tech.
Freedom to operate
Best practices call for the vetting of a proposed green tech solution to see if it is clear of others’ patent rights before implementation. The initial step in conducting a “clearance” evaluation is structuring an effective search to uncover any patents and published patent applications of interest (these can be supplemented with patents and published applications already known to you and your colleagues). A useful technique for this is computerized key-word searching of US patent data bases.
Patents and applications that cannot be discarded as irrelevant must be analyzed more deeply (applications cannot be infringed unless and until they are granted as patents, but they should be evaluated to see what’s in the pipeline). Such an analysis (and any written opinion based on same) should be obtained from outside IP counsel if the goal is to obtain advice most likely to be credited as reasonable and competent by a court. The file histories of those patents and applications are obtained from the USPTO. Then IP counsel can determine whether the patent(s) and/or application(s) are sufficiently limited so that they do not cover the contemplated green tech solution or, at least, can be circumvented by an acceptable design modification. Alternatively, a search can be conducted to find literature foreshadowing the purported invention and establishing the “invention’s” unpatentability.
This type of clearance work is known as a “freedom to operate” study, and is best performed as early as possible. A conclusion of non-coverage, the formulation of a feasible “design around,” or the identification of evidence that the patented technology is unpatentable, should dispel concerns about infringement. On the other hand, if there is no ready basis for concluding non-infringement, finding another route will be dictated (maybe one might decide to inquire about licensing someone else’s patent rights). But, in any event, forewarned is forearmed.
Conclusion
Unless a business protects its green tech assets, others may misappropriate them and the benefits they confer. Patenting is a powerful way of achieving this protection. However, the innovative (or even patentable) nature of a green tech development is not insurance against being sued by someone else for patent infringement. The risk of liability cannot be insightfully determined without a freedom-to-operate study. Bearing these concepts in mind should make “greening” not only a noble, but also a profitable venture.
George Snyder is a partner at Troutman Sanders’ NYC office.
Article with GERS mentioned.
http://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/7903/feel-the-heat
Feel the Heat
By Ron Kotrba | July 15, 2011
Ron Kotrba
...Biodiesel is hot again (we already knew that, right?), this was the predominant sentiment shared by several speakers and attendees at this year’s Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo, held in Indianapolis in late June. It may seem strange for biodiesel to be a topic of conversation at the world’s largest ethanol conference, but with so much focus on ethanol plants diversifying coproduct streams—specifically the growing popularity of backend corn oil extraction—biodiesel received a considerable amount of attention.
In addition to all of the peripheral talk about biodiesel, and how its resurgence is boding well for ethanol producers by putting upward pressure on corn oil prices, thereby enhancing ethanol producers’ bottom lines, I moderated the FEW’s one-and-only biodiesel-dedicated panel. The speakers included David Winsness, the chief technology officer of Greenshift Corp., supplier of corn oil extraction units for the ethanol industry; Jake Ferris, a retired professor from my alma mater Michigan State University, who spoke about his econometric model on the economics behind biodiesel production from corn oil; Ernie DeMartino, president and CEO of Biodiesel Experts International LLC, whose presentation focused on his company’s work with Israel-based TransBiodiesel on enzymatic biodiesel production; and Dave Elsenbast with Renewable Energy Group Inc., who gave a solid speech on the current state of the biodiesel industry and REG’s integration of corn oil as one of many feedstocks the company uses to produce its fuel.
I’ve said this before about our industry, but the diversity of the panel—the largest U.S. biodiesel producer, a researcher, an equipment maker helping to create more feedstock, and a biodiesel producer working on an alternative approach to biodiesel production—exemplified nicely the fact that this industry, despite its ups and downs, is rife with forward thinkers and innovators who will continue to push the envelope on what is possible in the world of methyl ester refining. While the future of the biodiesel tax credit is uncertain, what remains steadfast is this industry’s ability to adapt and progress, no matter the political climate. And that makes me very proud to be a part of it.
The venue GERS finds itself in is do to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which in this case was initiated by the judicial panel and not Greenshift. Greenshift initiated sep. litigation in differing venues which were then consolited by the panel. In order for a a Tex venue or Wis, or Calif Greenshift would of had to directly initiate that action, whereas in this instanct they files sporatically. At least that is my understanding under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The reasoning of the judicial panel for the current venue is that; it was a secondary choice initially as well as it's locale to the ethanol producers involved.
Just some quick DD
Venue and Judge(s)
Litigation Information
Here is some basic information on the venue and particular judge(s) who are involved in the litigation. If you have time, it is interesting reading. Those of us that went through law school may find it interesting anyway.
Remember, venue and judge(s) do matter, my knowledge of the law is very limited in the arena of intellectual property, so I'm afraid I am of little help here.
Ct. Background Info:
Multiple Patent Infringement Suits Brought by Greenshift Consolidated in Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana - A multidistrict litigation panel has consolidated eleven patent infringement lawsuits with the case pending beforeSenior Judge Larry J. McKinneyand Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynchin theSouthern District of Indiana. The cases, filed byGreenshift Corp.involve Patent No.7,601,858, titled METHOD OF PROCESSING ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND RELATED SUBSYSTEMS and issued by the U.S. Patent Office. The transfer order found that Indianapolis was a "readily accessible district near many of the alleged direct infringers ... which are scattered throughout the Midwest." The case no. is 1:2010cv08003.
Below are case management time tracks listed for the U.S. Dist. Ct - Southern Indiana (basically they are instructions for parties involved);
Case Management Tracks 1 & 2
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/Forms/patent%20cmp%20summary.pdf
Case Management Track 3
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/Forms/Patent%20CMP%20-%20Track%203.pdf
Those are strong words, but The GERS legal team is making the strongest case possible and that is what they were hired for. The is no nice guy in this phase of the proceedings.
Strong language right off the bat displays the confidence GERS has in it's case and may make the infringers settle sooner rather then later.
Logically it makes GREAT business sense. What better way to increase the return to us by enhancing the pps via buys and cancels.
There is cash now, there was not before. Before, reverse splits were the only option for GERS. That is not the case now.
Why not spend <$10000 on 100 million shares.
I doubt they are canceling, but to me if they have the means now, the pps is bottom, is the time to do it if any.
The 100 million shares...
Traded between 8:39 and 8:57. Can someone tell me what their price was (.xxxxx). Some may have been discounted, .00005?
If you notice there is a trade in there for 35 million at .0002 which is interesting, I would be interested to see what the overall average price is of the 100 million total.
I am trying to understand these large blocks as others are. I'm hoping it's some type of averaged buyback? It would seem to make sense that a buyback would involve an averaged share price over a day or longer? Although that is most likey not the case. There has been about 2 weeks of these 100 million share trade days, or about 1 billion worth. Also today is the last day of Q2. I'm wondering if we'll see this 100 million block tomorrow since it will be Q3?