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?
The District Court determined that had the USPTO been aware of the offer to test letter, that the patent would never had issued. The very same examiner, supposedly deceived by GS, reviewed the offer letter and determined she was not deceived at all.
This evidence was barred by the district court. Why?
It’s obvious a jury could rule in GS’s favor and GS was robbed of their constitutional right to trial by jury. The Court’s findings have been proven false. Another patent was issued to GS in May of 2020. The USPTO did a complete review. The Court refused to admit their faults, barred evidence and violated GS’s 7th amendment rights.
If there was ever a case the Supremes should review, it's this travesty of so called justice.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
