|[February 01, 2013]
Major Ruling in Litigation over Greenshift's Corn Oil Extraction Patents
ALPHARETTA, Ga. --(Business Wire)--
GreenShift Corporation (News - Alert) (OTCQB: 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 largelyor
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."
A copy of the Court's January 29, 2013 ruling is available online at www.greenshift.com.
GreenShift's technical services staff are available at 888-ETHANOIL or firstname.lastname@example.org
to respond to quotation requests and to answer any questions about
GreenShift's corn oil extraction and other technologies.
About GreenShift Corporation
GreenShift Corporation develops and commercializes clean technologies
designed to address the financial and environmental needs of
GreenShift's clients by decreasing raw material needs, facilitating
co-product reuse, and reducing the generation of wastes and emissions.
Additional information on GreenShift and its technologies is available
online at www.greenshift.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains statements that may constitute
"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Those statements include
statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of
GreenShift Corporation and members of its management as well as the
assumptions on which such statements are based. Prospective investors
are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not
guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties,
and that actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by
such forward-looking statements. Important factors currently known to
management that could cause actual results to differ materially from
those in forward-statements include fluctuation of operating results,
the ability to compete successfully, and the ability to complete
before-mentioned transactions. The company undertakes no obligation to
update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed
assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future
[ Back To Technology News's Homepage ]