Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

[Skribe]

Ok I've reread your post and combined with Skunks I put the pieces together to understand.

I Expect An Injunction To Be Ordered Shortly. I think the Markman hearing went our way which is why GERS is pushing for the injunction again. Regardless of what todu stated, I first posted about an injunction on yahoo in March of 2010. In a savvy move by our lawyers, they backed off the injunction until the Markman hearing was over. There's a list of reasons why this was an excellent move. The new court filings suggest GERS believes now is the right time for the injunction. That's why I'm talking about it again.

Remember the courts have already determined that good cause exists for preliminary injunction relief.

"The Court having considered plaintiff GS CleanTech's ("CleanTech") Motion for Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and having determined that good cause exists for granting the Motion, it is
Ordered
1. CleanTech's motion for Oral Argument on order for Preliminary Injunction
GRANTED:"


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDg3YTMwZTgtOWI4OC00ZWFlLThjMGYtNGQ3ZDk4ZTljMmI4&hl=en_US


To the SkunK's untrained legal eye it appears that after the Markman Hearing the preliminary injunction could now be back in play?  Did things go well enough that this could now happen?  Or are the calculated potential damages reaching a point of the defendant's inability to pay it all back anyway?  Or is it all just a negotiating gambit or a copy/paste mistake?  In other words - does it mean something - or nothing?  My guess is one or the other, but you have to admit the possibilities are worth pondering.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, GS CleanTech respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against IBEC and against its respective subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief:

A. The entry of judgment in favor of GS CleanTech and against IBEC;
B. A preliminary injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
C. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
D. An award of damages adequate to compensate GS CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began;
E. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); and
H. Such other relief to which GS CleanTech is entitled under law, and any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.