Alto Ingredients Inc (ALTO)

[Slashnuts]

PEIX: Oil Extraction Patent Infringement Lawsuit

PEIX: NK Walking Shareholders Into Lawsuits/Litigation

NK of PEIX is walking shareholders into a litigation buzzsaw. Lawsuit brewing for use of patented oil extraction technology, without a license.

PEIX: Oil Extraction Patent Infringement Lawsuit

PEIX's equipment supplier is being sued and losing for selling infringing equipment to ethanol producers. PEIX bought this infringing equipment from the company being sued.

The Lawsuit is being expanded this year to include patent infringing PEIX. Could be next week.

“We have looked at the so-called advanced oil, oil plus, COSS and such other attempts to work around our patents. We are highly confident, and even more so with this latest ruling, that all such attempts plainly infringe our patents.”

As we expand the litigation this year, ...we've reserved cash for this purpose.
The oil extraction systems PEIX bought from Edeniq and ICM extract a product that's mostly oil from concentrated stillage/syrup.
This is patented by GERS. Edeniq's seperate patent is claimed to "increase" the oil yield with the use of sodium, after the GERS method has been practiced. ICM's patent is claimed to "increase" the oil yield with the use of alcohol, again after GERS method has been practiced. The point is, these systems are based on GERS' patented method of extracting oil from syrup. The increase, as they claim, is based on GERS' pioneering methods. Increase from what? From the basic extraction of oil from syrup without sodium or alcohol.

PEIX Will Be Sued For Patent Infringement This Year If They Continue Stealing This Patented Technology Owned By GERS.

GERS Wins Markman 2.0 Hearing, ICM's Screwed...

Here's my favorite quote. Seperation means the same thing as extraction. PEIX bought "seperation" equipment but that's covered by GERS' "extraction" patents.

""Seperating" is nothing more than a specific manner in which to recover the oil and his it's plain meaning of "extracting"."

So much for the supposed difference between seperation and extraction. In the eyes of the courts, it's the same thing.

"The ‘037 Defendants have not convinced the Court that the concentrate terms are ambiguous." "Such is not the case here; the claims are unambiguous."

"As Plaintiffs suggested at the Markman hearing, the patent examiner was
persuaded that the inventor’s combination of elements, whether well-known in the art or
not, was new."

"Further, The ‘037 Defendants could not point to anything in the prosecution history that limits the patented invention to a separate evaporator. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the evaporating terms mean just what they say: “to subject the post-oil recovery thin stillage concentrate to further or additional evaporation.”

"The ‘037 Defendants proffer no argument in support of their proposed construction."

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ch8gAs4lCcTVNNa0loNmZMRDg/edit?usp=sharing

http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com

Court Issued Rulings Favor GreenShift

"Defendants’ Assumptions Completely Without Support"

"..NOTHING in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct."

https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?12010ml2181-169

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important the claim construction analysis that Plaintiffs have dodged, both publicly and before this Court, will require Plaintiffs to explain to this Court how the methods for corn oil recovery claimed in the ‘858 patent can be as broad as Plaintiffs’ rhetoric asserts when the exact same method is completely and identically disclosed in one prior art reference, namely, Prevost."

Court's Answer:
"Therefore, to distinguish itself from Prevost, Plaintiff clearly disclaimed that the heating that occurs as
part of the oil recovery step occurred at any time prior to or as a part of the evaporation or concentrating step."

ICM's Assertion:
"Most important, construction of the ‘858 patent will expose Plaintiffs’ failure to explain how the ‘858
patent claims differentiate from the clear teaching of Prevost U.S. Patent Application Publication
No.US2004/0087808 (“Prevost”) to obtain oil from concentrated thin stillage by centrifugation."

Court's Answer:
"Indeed, Applicants do distinguish their claimed methods from Prevost, but they do so explicitly on the grounds that their claimed method teaches a post-evaporation process for recovering oil from the concentrate using heat and mechanical processing."

"Defendants also cite Applicants’ statements regarding evaporation freeing some of the bound oil and how Minowa in combination with Prevost fail to teach or suggest “recovering the oil from the concentrated byproduct by heating and mechanically processing the concentrated byproduct to separate the oil from the concentrated byproduct.” Neither of these statements reference the recovery of oil free from water and solids. Indeed, Defendants state that they “presume” that is what Applicants were referencing. However nothing in the context of the prosecution history indicates that Defendants’ presumption is correct. Defendants’ assumptions regarding the grounds on which Applicants distinguished from Prevost are completely without support in the record of the prosecution history."

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ch8gAs4lCceTc3QjNFbGRmMHc/edit?pli=1

The Defendants contend that the statement “as claimed” in the underlined portion of the second explanation is a clear disavowal of claim scope as to all claims of the ‘858 patent and requires the concentrate or syrup after the oil recovery step to be substantially free of oil. The Court disagrees.
************************************

For these reasons, the Court concludes that only claim 7 of the ‘516 patent and claim 8 of the ‘484 patent require that the post-oil recovery step syrup stream be “substantially oil free.”
************************************

With respect to the absolute percentages advocated by the Defendants’, the Court concludes that the argument improperly seeks to import limitations from the specification into the claims. First, the Defendants cannot point to any language in the claims, the specification or the prosecution history that limit the substantially oil free limitation to the quantities listed in Figure 2 of the ‘858 patent family. There simply is none. The claims, as recited above, are completely devoid of any reference to numerical quantities.

GreenShift Corporation (GERS) today announced the issuance of a significant ruling in its ongoing prosecution of ethanol producers and other entities for infringement of GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction processes, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858, 8,008,516, 8,008,517, and 8,283,484.

GreenShift believes that the ruling dramatically strengthens its case for infringement against any person or entity recovering or facilitating the recovery of corn oil from the concentrated thin stillage by-product of ethanol producers.

All of the following defendants in GreenShift’s current litigation argued that GreenShift’s patents are limited to the recovery of at least 95% of the oil present in the concentrated thin stillage feed stream, and that they are consequently not infringing on GreenShift’s patents because they are recovering less than 95% of the oil present in their concentrated thin stillage feed streams: (1) Ace Ethanol; (2) Al-Corn Clean Fuel; (3) Blue Flint Ethanol; (4) Bushmills Ethanol; (5) Chippewa Valley Ethanol; (6) Heartland Corn Products; (7) Lincolnway Energy; (8) United Wisconsin Grain Producers; (9) Iroquois Bio-Energy Company; (10) Cardinal Ethanol; (11) ICM; (12) Big River Resources West Burlington; (13) Adkins Energy; (14) Big River Resources Galva; (15) Lincolnland Agri-Energy and (16) David Vander Griend.

The Court disagreed with the defendants’ arguments, and issued a Supplemental Claim Construction Order clarifying that the patents do not require recovery of any particular percentage of oil present in the syrup feed stream.

Significantly, the Court ruled that most of GreenShift’s patent claims cover mechanical processing to recover a product that is largely or mostly oil, and that they are not limited by the amount of oil that is not recovered from the concentrated thin stillage stream.
“We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling,” said David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer and co-inventor of its patented corn oil extraction technologies. “We have looked at the so-called advanced oil, oil plus, COSS and such other attempts to work around our patents. We are highly confident, and even more so with this latest ruling, that all such attempts plainly infringe our patents.”
Winsness continued: “Ethanol managers, board members, owners, lenders and other stakeholders that have adopted ‘wait-and-see’ infringement strategies are encouraged to pay careful attention to these events. Licensed producers receive a significant competitive advantage that we have pledged to vigorously defend. We will continue to do so and now look forward to expanding our efforts in the coming months.”

http://www.greenshift.com/123

http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com

Center Ethanol/Amaizing Energy Settle Lawsuit With GERS

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100817006314/en

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, GS CleanTech Corporation, by its undersigned counsel, and Defendant, Center Ethanol Company, LLC, by its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted by and between GS CleanTech Corporation and Center Ethanol Company, LLC, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney's fees.
"

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GreenShift Corporation announced today that GreenShift and its wholly-owned subsidiary, GS CleanTech Corporation, have settled its patent infringement lawsuit with Center Ethanol, LLC and entered into a license agreement for use of GreenShift's patented corn oil extraction process.

“We have been working with GreenShift for a very short time, but thus far we are impressed with their professionalism and knowledge of their corn oil extraction process”
.
“We are pleased to have the opportunity to partner with Center Ethanol as we work together to maximize the benefits corn oil extraction," said David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer of GreenShift.

“We have been working with GreenShift for a very short time, but thus far we are impressed with their professionalism and knowledge of their corn oil extraction process,” added Barry Frazier, President of Center Ethanol.

GreenShift’s technical services staff are available at 888-ETHANOIL or [e-mail] to respond to quotation requests and to answer any questions about GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction and other technologies

Amaizing Energy Settles Lawsuit With GreenShift

http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2012/06/amaizing-settlement.html

Extraction Patent Ruling Favors GreenShift

A court ruling has been announced in favor of GreenShift on its ongoing patent battle against several ethanol producers and other entities for infringement of GreenShift’s corn oil extraction processes. Defendants in the litigation argued that GreenShift’s patents are limited to the recovery of at least 95% of the oil present in the concentrated thin stillage feed stream and that there are no infringement occurring because they are recovering less than 95% of the oil. A court ruling has issued a Supplemental Claim Construction Order clarifying the patents do not require recovery of any particular percentage of oil present in the stream.

http://greenchemicalsblog.com/category/news-roundup/page/3/

GreenShift Licenses It's Patents To Green Plains

Green Plains Renewable Energy to Implement Corn Oil Extraction Technology

http://investor.gpreinc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=490592

Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:GPRE – News) announced today that it will implement corn oil extraction technology at its ethanol plants. The Company expects to complete the technology deployment by the end of the first quarter of 2011 and anticipates the project would enhance operating income by $15 million to $19 million per year.

“Our objective is to continue to diversify our cash flows and to de-risk our overall platform,” said Todd Becker, President and Chief Executive Officer of Green Plains Renewable Energy. “This project allows us to realize additional income streams from value-added co-products. The production of 75 million to 90 million pounds of corn oil per year will generate substantial recurring free cash flows and excellent returns on invested capital.”

ICM, Inc. has been awarded turn-key installation contracts at five of the Company’s six plants. The expected total project cost for all plants is approximately $18 million. The Company anticipates first revenues from corn oil extraction at the Obion, Tennessee plant to occur within the next 90 days.

Green Plains has entered into a license agreement with GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift Corporation, to utilize its patents and pending patents.

We began implementing corn oil extraction technology at our six legacy ethanol plants. As of August 31st, 2011, we were operating corn oil extraction systems at all 9 of our plants. The corn oil systems we are installing are designed to extract non-edible corn oil from the thin stillage evaporation process immediately prior to production of distillers grains. The corn oil product is primarily marketed as a feedstock for biodiesel as well as a supplement to livestock feed.

Other industrial uses for corn oil include feedstock for rubber substitutes, rust preventatives, inks, textiles, soaps and insecticides. Our corn oil is primarily sold to biodiesel manufactures and, to a lesser extent, feed lot and poultry markets. We generally transport our corn oil by truck to locations in close proximity to our ethanol plants, primarily in the southeastern and midwestern regions of the U.S. With our continuous yield improvements we expect to produce over 150 million pounds of corn oil across our platform in 2012

At capacity, our nine ethanol plants produce a total of approximately 740 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol annually.

GreenShift Licenses Its Patent's to Sunoco

GreenShift Licenses Its Patented Corn Oil Extraction Process to Sunoco

http://www.greenshift.com/corn-oil-extraction/413-2/
Slide show of GERS technology in SXL's refinery.

http://www.greenshift.com/129/
GreenShift Licenses Its Patented Corn Oil Extraction Process to Sunoco


Technology Produces Feedstock for Biodiesel, Second Renewable Fuel from Sunoco’s Green E15 Manufacturing Facility in Fulton, New York
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- GreenShift Corporation (GERS) announced today that it has licensed its patented technology to Sunoco for extraction of corn oil from a co-product of Sunoco’s corn ethanol manufacturing facility in Fulton, New York. The recovered corn oil is a valuable raw material for use in the manufacturing of biodiesel and other carbon-neutral products.

Designated an ‘advanced technology’ by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction is proven to improve the profitability, energy efficiency and carbon footprint of ethanol plants. GreenShift’s extraction process gives Sunoco the exciting ability to contribute to the production of a second renewable fuel (biodiesel) from every kernel of corn that is refined into ethanol. One kernel of corn can now produce two renewable fuels using GreenShift’s proprietary process.

Sunoco additionally awarded GreenShift the construction project to design and install the equipment.

“We selected GreenShift to be our technology provider after extensive review,” added Gary Center, Fulton ethanol facility manager at Sunoco. “The ability to extract corn oil to sell to third parties will provide a positive economic impact at the plant.”

“GreenShift is very pleased to be working with Sunoco; throughout the entire process Sunoco demanded the very best, and we are pleased that we were able to deliver,” added Edward Carroll, GreenShift’s President.

About Sunoco, Inc.

Sunoco is a leading transportation fuel provider with operations located primarily in the East Coast and Midwest regions of the United States. The company sells transportation fuels through more than 4,900 branded retail locations in 23 states. APlus convenience stores are operated by the company or independent dealers in more than 600 retail locations. The retail network in the Northeast is principally supplied by Sunoco-owned refineries with a combined crude oil processing capacity of 505,000 barrels per day. Sunoco is also the General Partner and has a 31-percent interest in Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P., a publicly traded master limited partnership which owns and operates 7,600 miles of refined product and crude oil pipelines and approximately 40 active product terminals. Through SunCoke Energy, Sunoco makes high-quality metallurgical-grade coke for major steel manufacturers. The company's facilities in the U.S. have the capacity to manufacture approximately 3.7 million tons of metallurgical-grade coke annually. Sunoco also is the operator of, and has an equity interest in, a 1.7 million tons-per-year coke-making facility in Vitória, Brazil.

About GreenShift Corporation

GreenShift Corporation (GERS) develops and commercializes clean technologies that facilitate the more efficient use of natural resources. GreenShift is focused on doing so today in the U.S. ethanol industry, where GreenShift innovates and offers technologies that improve the profitability of licensed ethanol producers. Additional information on GreenShift and its technologies is available online at
www.greenshift.com.

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$

The truth is, these systems are getting 70% less oil than others legally licensed with GERS. BIOF is getting .95, an industry record. GPRE, .90 with their GERS systems. United is doing .90pounds as well. REX and VLO are using the same infringing system as PEIX and getting only .55 pounds of oil per bushel. Edeniq claims yields in the .60 pound range. So much for the "increase".

The courts have ruled that any amount of oil extracted is covered by GERS' patents.

PEIX bought equipment from ICM and they're using it in a fashion that infringes Greenshift(GERS) patents.

ICM is already being sued as well as 15 other ethanol plants. PEIX is next. GERS is vowing to take action some time this year. Could be next week...

"..as we expand our litigation this year to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees by prosecuting additional producers(PEIX, REX, VLO) and other parties infringing our patents.

We hope to eventually eliminate our litigation expense, but we must and will take all necessary steps to bring infringement of our patents to an end. We have reserved cash for this purpose."

"A number of equipment suppliers(ICM, Edeniq) offer different components and equipment(advanced oil, oil plus) to ethanol producers for use in a manner which infringes our patented extraction technologies. We do not believe that competing system designs offered to ethanol producers by such third parties have capabilities and advantages comparable to our preferred system design."


We have initiated several infringement actions involving some of the above suppliers and ethanol producers (see Note 13 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, Commitments and Contingencies, below).

Executing a business model based on licensing requires us to invest in the protection of our intellectual property rights and the prosecution of infringement. We believe that litigation will be necessary, not to disrupt the availability of corn oil extraction technology, but rather to maximize its use by as many producers as possible on fair terms; to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees; to deter infringement; and, to ensure that we receive reasonable compensation for our proprietary technologies.


On February 27, 2013, the Court dismissed a number of unfair competition claims asserted by ICM against the Company


Make no mistake about it, the litigation is being expanded, and now for the first time, we have a time frame of this year.
PEIX is in violation of patent law by centrifuging a product that is mostly oil from concentrated stillage.

PEIX was sold the infringing equipment by ICM, a company that is already being sued and is losing...

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1269127/000109690613000465/greenshift10k20121231.htm
Here's what we know. PEIX is using a method to extract oil from concentrated stillage/syrup. They're practicing this method with equipment purchased from ICM, called the Advanced Oil System, and Edeniq, called the Oil Plus system. Take a look at their websites in the links below. Both systems clearly extract oil from concentrated stillage/syrup. This method is patented by GERS.

GERS is already suing ICM, and winning. ICM told PEIX that "ICM continues to believe that under a proper interpretation of the patents' claims, the Tricanter® Oil Separation System does not infringe GreenShift's patents." The court ruled against ICM's interpretation. The court agreed with GERS interpretation. The Tricanter and AOS are infringing. So is the Edeniq Oil Plus as it also treats the oil after GERS' patented method has already taken place.

Here's the patent numbers PEIX is infringing...U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858, 8,008,516, 8,008,517, and 8,283,484.
You Can look them up here...
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/

As you can see in the links below, the so called Advanced Oil system treats the oil after it's extracted with the Tricanter. In other words, the AOS is a post treatment that takes place after GERS' patented method.

The problem is, according to PEIX management, they are not licensed to practice this method patented by GERS. Extracting oil from syrup with the Tricanter centrifuge and feeding this stream to the post extraction treatment, AOS, is a clear violation of GERS' IP rights.

The court ruled against PEIX's equipment provider. GERS is promising to sue additional ethanol producers, especially those using the ICM AOS and Edeniq Oil Plus. GERS is preparing this wave of lawsuits against infringers like PEIX now.


“We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling,” said David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer and co-inventor of its patented corn oil extraction technologies. “We have looked at the so-called advanced oil, oil plus, COSS and such other attempts to work around our patents. We are highly confident, and even more so with this latest ruling, that all such attempts plainly infringe our patents.”


Winsness continued: “Ethanol managers, board members, owners, lenders and other stakeholders that have adopted ‘wait-and-see’ infringement strategies are encouraged to pay careful attention to these events. Licensed producers receive a significant competitive advantage that we have pledged to vigorously defend. We will continue to do so and now look forward to expanding our efforts in the coming months.”


PEIX's Oil Extraction Clearly Infringes GERS' Method Patents

PEIX is extracting oil from syrup, a method patented by GERS. PEIX doesn't have a license and is infringing GERS' patents.

PEIX management told me they're not licensed. They didn't think they needed to be. Management said they're watching the court case very closely.

Well now the courts ruled against ICM, PEIX's equipment supplier. ICM claimed under a "proper interpretation of the patents claims their systems don't infringe." The courts did not agree with ICM. The patents were interpreted in a way that proves PEIX is infringing.

I believe this exposes investors to liability of a major lawsuit as GERS' has vowed to go after producers using the AOS and Oil Plus system without a license from GERS.

Here's links to the oil system PEIX installed, the Advanced Oil system from ICM.

http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/06/21/480005/259921/en/Pacific-Ethanol-Inc-to-Implement-Corn-Oil-Technology.html

"The company has awarded ICM Inc., a leading provider of innovative technologies, solutions, and services to sustain agriculture and advance renewable energy, with a turn-key installation contract for its patented Advanced Oil Separation System™, which is expected to be installed at the Magic Valley plant by the close of 2012."

Open both these links and compare the AOS and Tricanter diagrams side by side. The diagrams are the same. The Tricanter extracts oil, just like it always has, and feeds it to the AOS.

AOS diagram towards the bottom...
http://www.icminc.com/products/advanced-oil-separation-system.html

Tricanter diagram towards the bottom...
http://www.icminc.com/images/pdfs/product_sheet/tricanter_oil_separation_system_lores.pdf

The AOS needs the Tricanter to feed it and the Tricanter violates GERS' patents. The AOS comes after the GERS method.

Remember ICM stated, "ICM continues to believe that under a proper interpretation of the patents' claims, the Tricanter® Oil Separation System does not infringe GreenShift's patents."

The claims have been interpreted. Nobody in their right mind thinks the court's interpretation is what ICM "believed" to be "a proper interpretation".

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ch8gAs4lCceTc3QjNFbGRmMHc/edit?pli=1

The AOS is infringing as it uses the Tricanter to extract oil from the concentrated syrup. Comparing the diagrams, they changed the "corn oil" stream to "emulsion concentrate". That's not fooling anyone. It's the same thing, mostly/largely oil with rest being water and solubles. Just like the Tricanter diagram said it is, "corn oil". The court has ruled this stream needs to be mostly/largely oil. To me this means more than half or >50% oil. As you can see in the AOS' diagram, the 50ml tube has way more than >50% oil. It looks to be around 75%. That's why they tried to add limit's claiming extraction needed to be 95%.

The court ruled term "concentrated stillage" to mean "syrup containing water, oil, and solids". As you can see, the Tricanter's input is the syrup feed and the AOS' very own diagram refers to this stream as "a mixture of water, oil, solubles".

Notice how they changed the name of the "de-oiled syrup" to "aqueous phase plus solids". The court ruled this is a mostly oil free stream which I believe means <50% oil. Clearly covered by GERS' patents.

"ICM's system separates corn oil from the post-fermentation syrup stream as it leaves the evaporators."

The AOS "treatment occurs post mechanical separation".

ICM was:
Wrong abount COES not being patentable,
Wrong about the "prior art",
Wrong about the "sale bar",
Wrong about the " 95% ",
Wrong about the interpretation of the claims,
Wrong about the Tricanter not infringing,
Wrong about AOS not infringing,
They Failed to get the trial on their home turf,
They Failed to get their leader off the hook...
Their Paid Bashers Failed...

Their own website confirms the streams, what's in them, where they are... It's all spelled out in the patents and the court/USPTO agree.

ICM's AOS Clearly Infringes GERS' Method Patents

http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com



“We have looked at the so-called advanced oil, oil plus, COSS and such other attempts to work around our patents. We are highly confident, and even more so with this latest ruling, that all such attempts plainly infringe our patents.”


PEIX to install "Oil Plus" syrup extraction system.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/11/05/502358/10011062/en/Pacific-Ethanol-Inc-to-Implement-Corn-Oil-Technology-at-Its-Stockton-Plant.html

"The company has awarded Edeniq, a biomaterials and sustainable fuels innovator, with a contract for its patented OilPlus™ technology, which is expected to be implemented at the Stockton plant by the second quarter of 2013."

http://www.edeniq.com/page/today
As you can see, the "Oil Plus" system clearly infringes GERS' patents by extracting oil from the syrup stream.

greenshift-gers.blogspot.com
The Court disagreed with the defendants’ arguments, and issued a Supplemental Claim Construction Order clarifying that the patents do not require recovery of any particular percentage of oil present in the syrup feed stream.


Significantly, the Court ruled that most of GreenShift’s patent claims cover mechanical processing to recover a product that is largely or mostly oil, and that they are not limited by the amount of oil that is not recovered from the concentrated thin stillage stream.


“We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling,” said David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer and co-inventor of its patented corn oil extraction technologies. “We have looked at the so-called advanced oil, oil plus, COSS and such other attempts to work around our patents. We are highly confident, and even more so with this latest ruling, that all such attempts plainly infringe our patents.”

Winsness continued: “Ethanol managers, board members, owners, lenders and other stakeholders that have adopted ‘wait-and-see’ infringement strategies are encouraged to pay careful attention to these events. Licensed producers receive a significant competitive advantage that we have pledged to vigorously defend. We will continue to do so and now look forward to expanding our efforts in the coming months.”
http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Major+Ruling+in+Litigation+over+Greenshift%E2%80%99s+Corn+Oil+Extraction+Patents/8051473.html

GERS has pledged to protect the competitive advantage of licensed producers like GPRE, BIOF, SXL, MPC, ANDE and more. It's been promised, the litigation is being expanded and GERS has unlicensed producers using the AOS and Oil Plus systems in their cross hairs. Investors be warned....

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$