This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration. Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here
Aug. 13, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Gevo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GEVO), a leading renewable chemicals and next-generation biofuels company, announced today that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals granted Gevo's motion to stay a status quo order entered on
July 6th by the U.S. District Court in
Delaware. The status quo order had prohibited Gevo from selling bio-isobutanol to the automotive fuels market pending Butamax
™ Advanced Biofuels, LLC's (Butamax) appeal of the District Court's decision denying its motion for preliminary injunction. In granting Gevo's motion, the Appeals court determined that Gevo had, at a minimum, "established a substantial case on the merits."
"We're delighted that the Federal Appeals court sided with Gevo and reversed the status quo order, which we believe was wrongly granted," said
Brett Lund, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Gevo. "We're once again free to sell to anyone anywhere."
"We also find it surprising that Butamax is pursuing an appeal of the District Court's opinion denying the motion for a preliminary injunction against Gevo. In denying that motion, the District Court stated that Butamax likely 'does not hold a valid patent nor would the defendant (Gevo) infringe if it did,'" Lund commented. "We see their appeal, two requests for status quo orders, the request for a Preliminary Injunction to shut down our commercial-scale production and the ongoing lawsuits as a blatant attempt by Butamax and its parent companies to slow us down and give themselves some chance to reduce our multi-year lead in commercialization of bio-isobutanol."
"We remain firm in our position that we have developed a unique and commercially viable technology and have never infringed on Butamax's technology because we simply don't need it. We have independently developed the industry leading technologies that we believe are not covered by their patents and are more effective than their efforts," Lund said. "We remain focused on our commercialization efforts and are encouraged by our string of victories in District Court and Federal Appeals Court."