Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View roberts663's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    Okay, your right about everything. DF would've profitable at 30% capacity, that's why SYNM sold for 30 million, when the plant cost 160 million to build and they had 100+ US and international patents not to mention ongoing research deals with the govt for phase change material and contracts with Mansfield, SkyNRG and the preferred supplier to the US military and airlines for renewable jet fuel.

    Plus I think comments like this, "In conclusion, it looks like the Dynamic Fuels plant is finally turning a corner, or at least has bought itself time to fix its problems," were flat out wrong and misleading when the plant wasn't even running...what corner??? Nothing was going on, you have to move to turn a corner.
    Sep 17, 2014. 01:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    I wouldn't be tooting my horn about this one especially considering it's REGI and not SYNM anymore and the article was about SYNM's legal position haha. Plus going back and reading a lot of your articles about SYNM was dead wrong....everyone got burned though.
    Sep 16, 2014. 08:13 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    "Thanks for the clarification, but that simply bolsters the claim that the Neste suit will be thrown out. SYNM was producing long before the Neste patent was issued, so how could SYNM be violating a patent that was granted AFTER the SYNM plant was up and running? If that is possible people would simply file patents on processes others are using, that aren't patented yet. I'm not sure when the patent process was actually started, but if it was filed after SYNM was already using it, I would doubt the patent office would uphold least I would hope not. It would throw the entire system into chaos. "

    This argument makes sense (to me and probably pretty much anyone that is reasonable), but it's not how patent law in the U.S. works. For instance, I knew this before hand, but this is a great simplified example. I know of someone who made Christmas tree bulbs w/ speakers that played Christmas carols. She sold them for years upon years prior to any patents being issued or even applied for. That's right, she sold them before a patent was even applied for. A company, I think everyone remembers them, specialized in making cheap, cool looking futuristic or innovative electronic devices, but they were really kinda junky...a company called The Sharper Image, if you don't remember them, they are still around. Anyways...they found out about this little business she was running, it wasn't even a million dollar revenue business BTW (think friends, families, friends of friends type of thing.) They filed a patent, remained silent, than gave this lady a cease and desist order the minute it was granted.
    Unfair? Yes, but that's how patent law works. This lady was defenseless even though her husband was a great lawyer, he didn't have patent experience, plus, patent lawsuits are so ridiculously expensive it wasn't even worth fighting even after her husband (who is a top lawyer BTW in his city that owns a partnership, not some $50k per year guy, plus they didn't need money, she did it for fun and a hobby, she wrote and published a few very popular college advice books as she was a college counselor that made a crap ton) told her it wasn't even a patentable product. Long story short, it doesn't matter when the patent was applied for, granted, when the product was first manufactured, all that matters is that it is IP the minute it gets granted.
    Jul 9, 2013. 10:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    A lot of my post got cut off, probably too long. Here's a briefing. The legal battles for the '394 patent are NOT over. This article kinda implies that they are. Neste has 30 days to ammend their '394 patent which expires July 26th of 2013. On July 8th, of 2013, Neste requested a 30 day extension to ammend their '394 patent. It is likely they will get approved for this extension as it is well ahead of the deadline and is a very, hmmm, complicated patent. They will likely however be denied the ammended claims (my opinion).
    This article kind of implies that the legal battles of the '394 patent at the USPTO level are over, not the case. This articles implies that the U.S. District Court of Delaware lawsuit is thrown out for the same patent. Not the case. As a matter of fact, even if the USPTO gets tossed, a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement can still take quite awhile. These things take time, even with these legal victories, the US DC of Delaware has a very full plate of corporate lawsuits on their hands.
    Also, the case of obviousness was in fact used by SYNM's defense, but the case of prior art (specifically Monier) was more important and referenced more in the USPTO ACP and previous files.
    All of this information is available on the patent pair website by referencing the control number of 95002084. Do your own DD, articles can sometimes be a tad misleading!
    Jul 9, 2013. 08:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    First off, the legal battle of the '394 patent is NOT over, read below.

    "Why would they have filed the weaker patent first? I speculated that they wouldn't. That was the whole purpose of the article. Care to explain why you think they would file the weaker patent first?"

    You can't file a lawsuit for a patent that doesn't exist yet, they had to wait for it to get granted by the USPTO before they filed suit. I agree that the lawsuits will be tossed, but the '394 one isn't quite over yet, Neste has 30 days to ammend or make new claims. I called all these suits correctly on a message board and was also the one who brought the lawsuit to attention before there was a news release and gave my opinions and provided shareholders the USPTO patent pair website with all the info.

    From SYNM's press release, snippets.
    "On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued an Office Action Closing Prosecution and rejecting all claims in the ongoing inter partes reexamination of Neste Oil’s U.S. Patent No. 8,187,344....The reexamination proceedings remain pending at the PTO under Reexam Control Number 95/002,084."

    So now from this, the key words are ongoing and remain pending, than we need to see what this Office Action Closing Prosecution is.

    "(1) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.951(a), the patent owner may once file written comments limited to the issues raised in the reexamination proceeding and/or present a proposed amendment to the claims which amendment will be subject to the criteria of 37 CFR 1.116 as to whether it shall be entered and considered. Such comments and/or proposed amendments must be filed within a time period of 30 days or one month (whichever is longer) from the mailing date of this action. Where the patent owner files such comments and/or a proposed amendment, the third party requester may once file comments under 37 CFR 1.951(b) responding to the patent owner’s submission within 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner’s submission on the third party requester"

    Now CFR 1.116
    "IP) yet. They are using an inventor named Monnier. I can't copy and paste from USPTO PDF so I'll include a few quotes from the website.
    "Mr Abhari's replications of SE'149 and Monnier were proper as all process parameters employed were within the ranges disclosed by the references. In addition, Ex. 12d of the 1st Abhari Decl. is clearly based on the prior art processes as properly replicated by Mr Abhari."
    Why is this beautiful?
    1. SYNM wins USPTO without even using their own IP outside of the lawsuit for prior evidence. Now lets say they win in Singapore. Bam, lets file suit against Neste who do not have a US patent and are selling renewable diesel fuel in the United States and they have all this prior evidence.
    2. What if SYNM loses based on using their own patents for prior evidence at the USPTO level? Better to lose on someone else's patent than your own for, won't use USPTO rulings based on SYNM's IP.
    3. If SYNM loses on the '394 (looks very unlikely now) or the '094 at the USPTO level, ammunition for a countersuit. Neste v. SYNM for the '394 patent that is in a Motion to Stay, SYNM, DF AND TSN already filed a countersuit. That's right, SYNM can use all this evidence by the USPTO and invalid patents and proceed the '394 AND seek monetary damages if they want to goto trial and use their own IP.
    Jul 9, 2013. 07:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    Jeezo petes man, the USPTO issues the patents, Neste doesn't issue their own patents! lol. None of your speculations make sense.
    Jul 9, 2013. 10:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Syntroleum's Lawsuit [View article]
    The 094 patent was issued after the 344 lawsuit began, thus Neste filed a separate suit. Nothing to do with which patent they thought was better, lol.
    The 344 lawsuit was filed on May 29, 2012, the 094 patent was issued to Neste on July 3, 2012. You post a lot of incorrect conclusions here and used to elsewhere, please do more research before you jump to speculative conclusions in the future.
    You do know that SYNM has patents for the process of manufactuing renewable diesel as well right? Are you saying they are as worthless as patenting a keyboard too? UOP also has their own IP that they are licensing to Valero and Darling for renewable diesel. Valero and Darling would never pay royalties if they thought UOP's patents were garbage and they would've just made their own plant with their process. Same thing with Tyson, they pay royalties to SYNM for the bio-synfining renewable diesel process. Patent law has just as much to do with the wording in English as it has to do with the chemistry, the wording of Neste's patents are too broad and similar patents have been brought up by SYNM for hydroprocessing in court that argues that Neste's are prior art.
    Jul 9, 2013. 06:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Long-term Government Bonds Are The 'Dumbest Investment' [View article]
    You know that when you own a mutual fund govt bond you can trade it right? When are interest rates going to rise again, when unemployment hits 6%? When is that going to happen. I don't see interest rates rising and the market is ripe for a correction. I see high yield bonds with a yield of 6% or higher good for years, especially if the market corrects. If you look at some of the best Pimco funds, most of them have 1 down year out of 20. They are a great hedge, especially right now since interest rates aren't moving and won't move for at least 1 year, at the very least.
    Mar 23, 2013. 08:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investor Fears Most Likely Overblown About Neste's Lawsuit Against Syntroleum [View instapost]
    I think you know also that DF, not SYNM, has sold fuel in Europe and Asia as well through SkyNRG, so they are both very much involved in the same markets.
    Mar 21, 2013. 02:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Syntroleum Reports Small Loss For 2012, But Plant Update Is Most Important [View article]
    It's a little odd to me you would write an entire article about a company's quarterly report, but not even read the document.
    Mar 20, 2013. 08:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investor Fears Most Likely Overblown About Neste's Lawsuit Against Syntroleum [View instapost]
    "3) SYNM and Neste don't compete in the same market. SYNM sells its fuel in the US, Neste in Europe."

    Just trying to get some things straight, Neste does sell renewable diesel in the U.S., not just in Europe or Asia. What made you think they did not? They have sold it for almost a year in the US market. Not that it matters in this lawsuit, just trying to keep these articles accurate.
    Mar 20, 2013. 08:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Companies That Reported 30% Sales Growth Last Week [View article]
    1.00 tax credit was retroactive for all of 2012 and backdated to Jan 01.
    Mar 14, 2013. 11:06 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
1 Like