The District Court's decision was based on the misguided, misleading and false premise that had the USPTO known of the offer to test letter, the patents wouldn't have issued.
This inconvenient truth was barred by the District Court. This begs the question: would a jury determine the USPTO had been deceived when the USPTO denies it?
Would a jury determine the July, 2003, testing a success when the test gyro clogged? Would a jury find the parameters of the patented methods were practiced when the syrup sample sat, settled and cooled before a (non substantial/few milliliters) portion of oil was separated in a non-continuous fashion?
Lastly, would a jury see GS's non-disclosure/confidential testing as an offer to sell? Or would they be convinced by other evidence? Specifically, GS's statement that Agri-Energy was their testing partner. That the results of the test were to be kept confidential until GS knew it worked for it's intended purpose in an operating ethanol plant, in real-time, without fouling the test centrifuge. That GS wanted to keep it confidential until they were ready to solicit the entire industry at once (Which happened shortly after the 2004 test). That in early 2004, Agri-Energy was still testing centrifuging thin stillage (not syrup).
This invention is worth $20 billion in corn oil for the life of the patents. Yet the judge on the federal circuit panel couldn't even pronounce the inventors name (Winsness is easy to pronounce). He couldn't take the time to learn the pronunciation of a name. Did he take the time to review the facts under proper procedures?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
