Major Ruling in Litigation over Greenshift's Corn Oil Extraction Patents
Feb 1, 2013 11:57:00 (ET)
ALPHARETTA, Ga., Feb 01, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- GreenShift Corporation (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 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."
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 email@example.com 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 operating results.