"PEIXvsGS Case Transferred&Added to the 20 Other Cases Litigation Just Became Cheaper Divided by 21 Other DEEP Pocket Deffendants"
So you're telling us that patent infringing PEIX fought against being transferred because they wanted to go the more expensive route?
That doesn't make any sense. Patent infringing PEIX now has to pay to defend themselves against a lawsuit on the other side of the country, in Indiana. Plane tickets are expensive these days, especially the 1st class lawyer type tickets. Seems to me they would've saved money if the lawsuit was in California.
Litigation didn't become cheaper for patent infringing PEIX. That isn't even the true reason they fought being transferred. Patent infringing PEIX didn't want to be transferred to the lawsuit the other defendants are clearly losing. Mainly, due to the ruling in the Marksman hearing.
"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.”
Patent Infringing PEIX was seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit. Or in the alternative, to have the case unfold in California.
The good judge denied PEIX of their dismissal request, denied their request to a trial in California, and added them to the defendants currently facing Summary Judgment and Injunctions.
This is exactly what GERS requested and the judge ruled in GERS' favor.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
