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.
"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.
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".
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.
“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.”
"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.”
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....
PEIX Infringing GERS' Family Of Patents
"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."
Take a look at the Tricanter centrifuge on page 3. This centrifuge is extracting oil at Big River's plant from the concentrated stillage/syrup. Big River is currently being sued and is also partly owned by REX. http://www.bigriverresources.com/Volume%202%20Issue%202%20WOFIN.pdf
As you can see in the picture on the bottom of the page in the link above, the Tricanter extracts oil from the syrup. The extraction of oil from syrup is the method patented by GERS.
PEIX has ICM's so called "advanced oil" system installed in their plants. This system is clearly a treatment that takes place after the oil has been extracted with GERS' patents. In fact, the system uses a Tricanter to extract oil from syrup just like it always has. Nothing has changed, the AOS is infringing GERS' patents.
As you can see in the links above, the Tricanter is used to extract from syrup. Comparing the two links, they changed the name of the product that's extracted with the Tricanter from "oil" to "emulsion concentrate".
The Tricanter is infringing and so is the AOS. The AOS uses a Tricanter. The infringement continues as both ICM systems extract from syrup with a Tricanter.
ICM stated in the past, "ICM continues to believe that under a proper interpretation of the patents' claims, the Tricanter® Oil Separation System does not infringe GreenShift's patents."
Unfortunately for ICM, the patents have been interpreted in Greenshift's favor and proves the Tricanter infringes. Since the act of infringement happens when the Tricanter seperates oil, the AOS is infringing because the Tricanter feeds the post extraction stream to the AOS for additional treatment.
The patents claim a stream is extracted that contains oil, water, solids. Unfortunately for ICM, this is exactly what they extract. "emulsion concentrate (a mixture of water, oil, solubles..)".
The AOS does nothing to get around GERS' patents. It's fed by the same Tricanter centrifuge that ICM claimed wasn't infringing.
Here's what GERS said after the major court ruling.
“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.”
greenshift-gers.blogspot.com
"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.”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
