Published On: Fri, Nov 18th, 2016

Greenshift Corp (OTCMKTS:GERS) Updates On Patent Infringement Action

Greenshift Corp (OTCMKTS:GERS) released an update pertaining the underway patent infringement action linked to its subsidiary firm, GS CleanTech Corporation, and its corn oil extraction patents. A couple of years ago, the District Court ruled in favor of the respondents in CleanTech’s incomplete patent breach matter on their indications for summary judgment claiming, among other things, that certain of their corn oil extraction copyrights were inacceptable.

The court stated that the Patents in Suit were mainly unenforceable because of implications that attorneys and inventors engaged in inequitable behavior by expressively withholding material data with an intent to cheat the “USPTO”. Both decisions are appealable. The company differ with the court’s decisions in each ruling, and consider that each decision dependent heavily on a flawed determination that the creations were minimized to practice in 2003 following limited, small-scale bench assessment.

The assessment

In rendering its judgment verdict, and without having performed a trial or holding a trial on the merits, the district court approved with the defendants that the data surrounding the 2003 bench assessment offered sufficient proof that the processes asserted in the Patents in Suit were minimized to practice as a matter of law.

That results in turn offered the further platform for the court’s ruling that an invalidating offer for sale happened almost a year before the shareholders submitted a patent application, when the creators sought to perform a full-scale feasibility assessment in an operating ethanol plant just after the 2003 bench assessment. That feasibility assessment happened in May 2004. The designers submitted their first patent application just thereafter.

In its latest verdict, the court accepted the defendants’ claims regarding inequitable conduct, stating after a limited bench hearing that since it had earlier decided that the creation had been “offered for sale” and “reduced to practice” in 2003, the only rational inference that could be listed was that the attorneys and inventors knowingly withheld material data with the intent to mislead the USPTO pertaining to the timing of the reduction to practice.

© Copyright 2016 OTC News Magazine. All rights reserved.