GREENSHIFT CORP

In October 2014, the District Court in Indiana ruled in favor of the defendants 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 rendering that decision, among other things, the court agreed with the defendants that the inventions giving rise to the Patents in Suit were "reduced to practice" in 2003 as a result of limited, confidential small-scale bench testing, and that an invalidating "offer for sale" occurred when the inventors submitted a confidential non-public letter to an operating ethanol plant in 2003 in connection with the inventors' efforts to conduct a confidential full-scale feasibility test. That full-scale feasibility test eventually occurred in May 2004. Our first patent application was filed shortly thereafter.

CleanTech strongly disagrees with the District Court's conclusions in each ruling, and believes that each decision relied heavily on an erroneous determination that the inventions were "reduced to practice" in 2003 as a result of the limited, small-scale bench testing – the first experimentation ever conducted by the inventors. Critically, no jury trial or hearing was ever held in respect of the material factual determinations supporting the court's 2014 ruling, including 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 corn oil extraction 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 "knowingly 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 that are not explicitly discussed in the prior rulings (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")).