v3.5.0.2

Subsequent Events | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2016
Subsequent Events [Abstract] |
Subsequent Events |
NOTE 19 | SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On October 13, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, titled “Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the ’858 Patent) to GS CleanTech Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of GreenShift Corporation. On October 27, 2009, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,608,729, titled “Method of Freeing the Bound Oil Present in Whole Stillage and Thin Stillage” (the ’729 Patent) to GS CleanTech. Both the ’858 Patent and the ’729 Patent relate to the Company’s corn oil extraction technologies. GS CleanTech Corporation, our wholly-owned subsidiary, subsequently filed legal actions in multiple jurisdictions alleging infringement by various persons and entities. Multiple additional related suits and countersuits were filed. On May 6, 2010, we submitted a “Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings” to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) located in Washington, D.C. In this motion, we moved the Panel to transfer and consolidate all pending suits involving infringement of our patents to one federal court for orderly and efficient review of all pre-trial matters. On August 6, 2010, the Panel ordered the consolidation and transfer of all pending suits in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana for pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Case”). In October 2014, the District Court in Indiana ruled in favor of the defendants in our pending patent infringement matter on their motions for summary judgment alleging that our corn oil extraction patents were invalid, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858 (the “’858 patent”); 8,008,516 (the “’516 patent”); 8,008,517 (the “’517 patent”); and 8,283,484 (the “’484 patent” and, collectively, the “Patents in Suit”). In September 2016, the District Court ruled that the Patents in Suit were additionally unenforceable due to inferences that our inventors and attorneys withheld material information from the USPTO. Critically, no trial or hearing was ever held in respect of material factual determinations supporting the court’s 2014 ruling, including the material factual issues that should have resulted in the right to a jury trial. Further, in connection with ongoing patent filings, the USPTO allowed CleanTech’s patents after considering the very information that the court found to have been withheld, and upon which the bulk of the court’s recent ruling was based; all of the information alleged to have been withheld from the USPTO in connection with the Patents in Suit was provided to and considered by the USPTO prior to issuance of several additional patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,212,334 (the “’334 patent”); 9,108,140 (the “’140 patent”); 9,320,990 (the “’990 patent”); and 9,012,668 (the “’668 patent” and, collectively, the “New Patents”). Neither the October 2014 nor the September 2016 ruling is a final judgment. We strongly disagree with the court’s conclusions in each ruling and we intend to mount a vigorous appeal.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_SubsequentEventsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for significant events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date through the date the financial statements were issued or the date the financial statements were available to be issued. Examples include: the sale of a capital stock issue, purchase of a business, settlement of litigation, catastrophic loss, significant foreign exchange rate changes, loans to insiders or affiliates, and transactions not in the ordinary course of business. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_SubsequentEventsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration