Agoracom

Right up to the 12/18 settlements PR, PTSC/TPL were having a strong momentum supported by -

1. Largely positive Markman ruling by JW. I say largely because there were some insignificant setbacks because small portion of disputed (patent) claim terms went to J3 side, including the 584 "right justification of instruction group" thing. Those setbacks were not as significant as those claim terms went to our side. More pressure was on J3 after the Markman ruling.

CUPERTINO and CARLSBAD, CA, June 18, 2007 - The TPL Group and Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC) today applauded the Markman ruling of the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, which broadly confirmed the strength of the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio jointly owned by the two companies.

2. Momentum was also shown in the licenses deals after the Markman and before 12/18 -

2007-6-18 Texas Court Ruling Confirms Strength of Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio

2007-7-20 Patriot Scientific Signs Bull to Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
2007-8-29 Patriot Scientific Announces Licensing Agreement with the LEGO Group
2007-9-07 Patriot Scientific Licenses Microprocessor Patents to DMP Electronics Inc.
2007-9-10 Denso Wave Becomes 23rd Licensee of Patriot Scientific Patents
2007-10-03 American Power Conversion (APC) to be Covered by Patent License
2007-10-29 Patriot Scientific Welcomes Philips to List of Microprocessor Patent Licensees
2007-11-17 TEAC Corporation Purchases Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License
2007-12-03 Daewoo Electronics Purchases Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License
2007-12-06 WMS Gaming Joins List of Patriot's Microprocessor Licensees
2007-12-07 Lite-On Purchases Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License
2007-12-10 Alpine Electronics Purchases Microprocessor Patent Portfolio License

2007-12-18 B TPL, Toshiba, Matsushita (Panasonic), and JVC Resolve Their Dispute Over the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
2007-12-18 A TPL and NEC Electronics America Resolve Their Dispute Over the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio

Notice that in first 10 days on December along, there are four licenses deals just before the 12/18 settlements.

Also notice the signing of Philips, which is not a small potato be any means.

before 12/18, court proceedings were documented by Pacer for all to see, all including those lawyers hired by all those companies hooked by MMP patents. One can imagine that lawyers monitoring the court case were more open to talk to each other before 12/18, since there was no NDA before that date, The acceleration of licensing activities clearly shown that the momentum was on our side.

3. Were USPTO re-exams so negative to change the momentum to J3's side? Not really. since there was no significant development there since re-exam resuests were submitted. The Markman, acceleration of license signing were not irrelevant occurings to those USPTO examiners for them to turn blind eyes at those facts.

So, what were things that had potentially disrupt the momentum of PTSC/TPL to cause them to change the sail, or to play the safe, as some poster suggested that it was TPL/PTSC wanted to settle out of court to avoid trail by juries and prefer to using USPTO re-exam instead? Patent reform act? Hearing of LG case by high court? What else?

If Patent reform and LG case did change the thinking of TPL lawyers, why would they change course to delay the resolution of validity of MMP and infringement of J3 and other potential inf-ringers? If 12/18 event did not happen, the trail would go much faster than either re-exam of three patents and pending LG case. Faster means J3 case were less influenced by later re-exam results and court ruling of pending LG case. This theory does not fly. Many poster had already rejected this by taking the arguments by the disposed poster - MIKE3691 as FUD.

When we say that the momentum was on our side, there are extra benefiting facts not stated above. Including -

1. This was a case of two US companies against thee Japanese companies on our soil.
2. We are defending our rights (patents) against foreign owned companies who steal out property.
3. Let Juries in Texas to decide the case would be more favorable to PTSC/TPL, taking account of many companies had gave in to take a license, plus the interpretation of meaning of claim terms for juries to use were settled by positive Markman ruling.

I do not see any sound reason for TPL to suddenly change strategy in a grand scale before the 12/18 event. For people who think this kind of theory (It was TPL wanted to settle and better playing safe with PTO instead of loosing in a trail) is plausible, we can have a open debate.

If someone post a theory he/her self dose not believe, but want others to believe, is it safe the say that there is an agenda behind the theory?