Home > Boards > US OTC > Oil/Gas/Natural Energy Production > Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

Now, the NUB of Cardinals Problem, and WHY

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (2) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
DHOLE Member Profile
Followed By 10
Posts 2,129
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 08/10/10
160x600 placeholder
DHOLE   Wednesday, 12/14/11 07:54:31 PM
Re: DHOLE post# 23152
Post # of 52507 
Now, the NUB of Cardinals Problem, and WHY IT CANNOT SETTLE WITH GERS:
"Patent Infringement"

"On June 27, 2008, we entered into a Tricanter Purchase and Installation Agreement with ICM, Inc. for the construction and installation of a Tricanter Oil Separation System. On February 12, 2010, GS CleanTech Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claiming that the Company's operation of the oil recovery system manufactured and installed by ICM, Inc. infringes a patent claimed by GS CleanTech Corporation. GS CleanTech Corporation sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied, and seeks royalties and damages associated with the alleged infringement, as well as attorney's fees from the Company. On February 16, 2010, ICM, Inc. agreed to indemnify, at ICM's expense, the Company from and against all claims, demands, liabilities, actions, litigations, losses, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees arising out of any claim of infringement of patents, copyrights or other intellectual property rights by reason of the Company's purchase and use of the oil recovery system.

GS CleanTech Corporation subsequently filed actions against at least fourteen other ethanol producing companies for infringement of its patent rights. Several of the other defendants also use equipment and processes provided by ICM, Inc. GS CleanTech Corporation then petitioned for the cases to be joined in a multi-district litigation ("MDL"). This petition was granted and the MDL was assigned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Case No. 1:10-ml-02181). The Company has since answered and counterclaimed that the patent claims at issue are invalid and that the Company is not infringing. The Company anticipates that once the issues common to all of the defendants have been determined in the MDL, the cases will proceed in the respective districts in which they were originally filed.

The Company is not currently able to predict the outcome of this litigation with any degree of certainty. ICM, Inc. has, and the Company expects it will continue, to vigorously defend itself and the Company in these lawsuits. The Company estimates that damages sought in this litigation if awarded would be based on a reasonable royalty to, or lost profits of, GS CleanTech Corporation. If the court deems the case exceptional, attorney's fees may be awarded and are likely to be $1,000,000 or more. ICM, Inc. has also agreed to indemnify the Company. However, in the event that damages are awarded, if ICM, Inc. is unable to fully indemnify the Company for any reason, the Company could be liable. In addition, the Company may need to cease use of its current oil separation process and seek out a replacement or cease oil production altogether." Discussion and Clarification to Follow.

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (2) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
Current Price
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist
Consent Preferences