Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
As you can see, I'm very "BULLISH!"
Form 12b-25 filed on 8/26/05 (4Q) states: "...and also recently settled CERTAIN SUITS involving potential INFRINGERS of its intellectual property and was unable to finalize the report for filing in a timely manner."
Everybody thinks just because the case is consolidated, that does not necessarily mean that all have settled. It could simply mean 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5 or, or 4 of 5.
There are approximately 648 shareholders of record as of May 31, 2005. I would assume at least half of them who has extensively researched and invested in this company have something to say.
Excited or depressed. Agree or disagree. Call me fellow shareholder or call me plain stupid. But don't expect me or fellow shareholders to hold your hand without doing your homework first.
Flashback to 3Q-10QSB
Note 3 License Receivables: “The accumulated amount of the two licenses was $3,050,000...”
“...The Ignite license agreement contained a royalty provision, under which we could earn royalty income based on our customer’s sales. No royalties were earned during this quarter.”
Results of Operations: Revenues - “Our significant revenue increase of $2,948,466 was a result of entering into 2 licenses with a single customer (AMD) - one for our Ignite microprocessor and the second for our patent portfolio of microprocessor technologies.” “The Ignite license contains provisions for royalties based on the customers delivery of items making use of this technology. We cannot be certain of the amount or timing of future royalties related to that agreement.” “We anticipate that future revenue will be derived from continued successful microprocessor technology efforts in the form of licensing and royalties and the successful collection of patent infringement proceeds from litigation and settlement.”
PTSC’s Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited)
Net Sales: $2,951,850 = $2,948,366 (AMD) + $3,384 (2/29/04)
PTSC’s Consolidated Balance Sheets
License Receivables: $2,750,000
$300,000 due upon execution (3Q) + $750,000 paid on 4/1/05 (4Q) [$292,500 Ignite License + $25,000 Maint. Fee + $432,500 MPP License] = $1,050,000
4Q ends on 5/31/05
10K filed on 9/13/05
PTSC’s Consolidated Statements of Operations (Audited)
Net Sales: $2,982,586 = Product $25,077 + License & Royalties $2,957,509 (AMD) [Note that the calendar quarter ending on 3/31/05 represents 4-5 weeks of sales; due payment was 5/16/05].
Next payment for calendar quarter from 4/1/05 to 6/30/05 (appx 13 weeks of sales) was due on 8/15/05.
PTSC’s Consolidated Balance Sheets
License Receivables: $2,000,000
Note: AMD License precedes PTSC & TPL’s settlement, which means PTSC keeps 100%.
9/14/05 press release: “This filing is an important milestone for PTSC... While the 10k presents mostly historic data, it provides the clearest picture yet of the challenges that the company faced and the exciting position we are now in to transform the way PTSC conducts its business. We now have an excellent basis for moving forward with financial momentum...”
I hope those idiots (RB, Agoracom, etc.) who cannot decipher relevant information (especially those who could never punctuate or spell correctly) get too depressed, sell and drive the PPS down.
VERY STRONG BUY when it hits below $0.08.
PTSC’s Consolidated Statement of Operations: Net Sales - Product $25,077; Licenses & Royalties $2,957,509 (Note 11: “...During the year ended May 31, 2005, there were no major customers related to the Company’s product sales. Additionally, during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005, the Company recorded license revenues as more fully described in Note 3..”).
Note 3: We already know “...the aggregate amount of the two licenses is $3,050,000...”
“...Total payments received to date under the agreements include $1,050,000 in fiscal 2005...”
$300,000 at the time of execution + $750,000 paid on 4/1/05 = $1,050,000.
Increase to 500,000,000 authorized shares approved; 648 shareholders as of 5/31/05; net sales of $2.9 million (including license & royalty); operating expenses of $2.8 million; net loss of $2.6 million ($2.8 million interest expense as result of lines of credit and convertible debentures)....
10K Released
10K was originally due on 8/29/05 (90 days from 5/31/05). Rule 12(b)-25 extends 10K filing 15 days from the due date of 8/29/05, which is 9/13/05 - I'm anticipating a filing before 13th.
Ok, but I expect the global market share to exceed 4%. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your ROCE analysis.
IMO there will be no buy-out as it requires majority shareholder approval (which involves TPL once they have exercised their warrants).
AMD and INTC license agreements validates the joint patent portfolio - worldwide. And for those who oppose and do not acknowledge the joint patent portfolio, TPL should file civil complaints for infringement in federal court t/w immediete requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions.
Clock is ticking to 2015.
OTC Penny stock w/275,000,000 outstanding and 400,000,000 authorized (a proposal to increase authorized shares by 100,000,000 is still in the air and yet to be clarified by Pohl); 3Q reflects AMD's agreement (which at that point, I recall, was 1 or 2 weeks left into 3Q); TPL & PTSC's settlement is 2 months old; Intel's agreement signed in late July (to be reflected in 1Q); naked shorts and Berlin's Stock Exchange, etc...
If PTSC is trading @ $0.11 to $0.12, or below, a year from now, I would be really upset. But what are the chances ??? What shareholders and prospective investors are waiting for is the anticipated 10K showing possible royalty payments from AMD and 1Q-10QSB showing Intel's license payment and 1 months' worth of possible royalties (if applicable) compounded with AMD's possible royalty payment.
3Q-10QSB reflects income b4 interest and taxes to be $1.8 million and S/E to be $2.8 million => 64.4% 3Q ROCE
If TPL manages to settle and/or acquire additional licensing agreements, compounded with possible royalty payments from AMD & INTC, and with Pohl’s recent statement of “no debt other than current payables, and millions of tax loss carry forward to apply against future earnings as permitted applicable laws...” I would imagine ROCE to be much, much higher than 4% for this fiscal year and beyond [especially if PTSC manages to suppress liabilities for the next 10 years].
If a buy-out were to occur, I would want a minimum offer of $20 billion for the joint patent portfolio, which is good until 2015.
"According to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), global chip sales are forecast to grow $214 billion in 2005. SIA is projecting a compound annual growth of 11.8% for the industry through 2007."
"Global sales by potential licensees of products applying technologies [ie. cell phones, smart cards, remote controls, appliances, portable computers and devices, motor controls, automotive systems, etc..] protected by the jointly owned patents are estimated to be greater than $200 billion annually."
"TPL and PTSC believe at least 3 of 10 patents are elemental to virtually every microprocessor design..."
Two of the largest chip-makers in the world already signed up as licensees for the joint patent portfolio. #1 Intel reported on July 19, 2005 second quarter revenue of $9.2 billion and is forcasting revenue in the 3rd quarter to be between $9.6 billion & $10.2 billion.
#2 AMD on July 13, 2005 reported second quarter revenue of $1.260 billion and expects microprocessor sales growth to exceed normal seasonal patterns.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but if Verizon is willing to acquire MCI for $8.5 billion, whose net lost exceeds $3 billion in '04 and total assets over $4 billion, I would say +$20 billion is a reasonable offer for the joint patent portfolio ($10 billion each to PTSC and TPL).
A private investor group such as Silver Lake Partners, who recently acquired SunGard for $11.3 billion, would be able to afford the $20 billion price tag. SunGard's 2004 reported revenue was $3.56 billion, with 10,000 employees that serves more than 20,000 custmers. Silver Lake Partners investment portfolio also includes Ameritrade, Flextronics, NASDAQ, Seagate, Network General, Thompson & UGS.
With total assets exceeding $109 billion, IBM could also afford the +$20 billion price tag which could boost their previous annual net income of $8 billion. This patent monster currently has a patent portfolio of 40,000 active patents worldwide. And, they have the resources to enforce the joint patent portfolio.
90 day deadline from 5/31/05 falls on 8/29/05. PTSC may file 10K next week or shortly thereafter to include additional info re settlements on forward looking statements for the next quarter/fiscal year - after TPL's approval of course.
No big deal. Hey how about that pending patent regarding Radio Frequency Charging of Wireless Devices (page 3)
http://www.patriotscientific.com/corporate/investors/proxypackage2005.pdf
3Q-10QSB, period ending 2/28/05, page 13, Item 2, Overview paragraph states: "...We also have a patent for special radar technology which, if fully developed, may allow a potential licensee to penetrate the ground or structures to find various objects. We also owned gas plasma antenna technology which we sold for $250,000 in August 1999."
http://www.ptsc.com/corporate/investors/10q2005c.pdf
Unless I'm wrong, please provide link to PTSC's 8k or related PR that shows sale of patent.
It wouldn't matter anyway, I would imagine behind this special radar technology, lies beneath the patent portfolio owned by PTSC & TPL.
I would also think that this technology would be useful to Homeland Security, DOJ, DOD, CIA, ATF, NSA, etc...
90 days from 5/31/05 is 8/29/05. PR will probably come out on 8/30/05.
Worth the risk ? Well, at least for me it is....
How many tips (modules) are there around the edge of the PTSC umbrella ?
“...Patriot still retains certain rights in the portfolio and complete rights to commercialize our Ignite (TM) and Array products. That business could be another module, either as a division or perhaps as a joint venture ...”
Ground Penetrating Radar Technology (1 patent) and other additional pending patents (refer to company’s investment profile).
“...Later, other revenue-producing modules within a define focus of criteria might be added through product development acquisitions or joint ventures....”
Reinvesting..
“...continue to evaluate opportunities that may exist with small or underfunded companies that may have unique, compatible products or proprietary technologies to add to our portfolio. All of this would be consistent with my personal goal, subject to Board approval, to have Patriot become a company that is not dependent on a single product line of revenue.”
5 to 10 years later....
Received a VOIP call on my low power consumption BlackBerry cell phone, while checking my e-mail in-box. Order executed at bid, made reservations at Bellagio’s website and routed the printed receipts to my wireless home network printer. Placed the cell phone onto the wireless charging console - recharging cell phone’s fuel cell battery, inside the fuel injected, fuel cell, rented H2 Hummer. Returned to surfing Pipeline before flying back to the mainland. Oh yeah, watching Monday Night Football, live and free, onboard airline.
I really like PTSC’s potential - it’s a high risk, long-shot, “Hail-Mary” pass winning investment.
There’s several things that I would like to see:
(1) Reverse stock split: If PTSC increases authorized shares to fulfill their short-term obligations and/or objectives, I would like to see a reverse stock split, especially if the DMA 20/30/50 is below $1.00 in the 3rd and 4th quarter; 100/200 is below $3.00 for the fiscal year ending in May 2007. Depending on the bid price, I would like to see a reverse stock split of 1:10, 20 or 30. Remember, the reason why PTSC rejected the $7.5 million offer for the patent portfolio, which included a royalty-sharing scheme, is that PTSC estimates the value of the patent portfolio to exceed $1 billion - “Global sales by potential licenses of products applying technologies protected by the jointly owned patents are estimated to be greater than $200 billion annually.”
(2) Nasdaq listing in 2006.
(3) Reinvesting liquid assets.
(4) Distribution of dividends in 2008.
(5) Stock split 2:1 or 3:1 by 2009; 2:1 by 2011., 2:1 by 2013.
(6) Merger between PTSC & TPL and/or another company by 2007 and beyond.
I recently spoke to our IT department about purchasing a new lap-top (my 4 year old lap-top is obsolete compared to today’s under $1000.00 version, which will become obsolete by 2006). In the less than 1 hour, I have learned what the trend will be in consumer electronics/digital products in the next 5 to 10 years. And although no one is saying it, its hard not to think that behind the most current & evolving technology, lies beneath the patent portfolio that belongs to PTSC and TPL.
If nothing materializes for shareholders (financial & legal) within the next 2-5 years, it was well worth the risk anyway.
I should say "for quarterly period ending February 28, 2005."
My apologies.
According to 3Q-10QSB, fiscal year 2005, pg 4:
$658,867 Net Income / 275,776,000 Outstanding Shares =
$0.00 EPS is not cool.
Reverse split within a year or two will fix that.
Modest royalty payments from AMD for the use of the IGNITE license (royalty provision disclosed, amount undisclosed) and the Patent Portfolio (royalty structure unknown & undisclosed) in the upcoming 10K will be appreciative. I anticipate the price range to be $0.13 to $0.17.
If Fujitsu, et al., settle prior to case management conference set for late September, price range will probably be at $0.15 to $0.28. Parties will probably request an extension for stay or proceed with discovery proceedures with the possibility of settling the case within the year.
1Q-10QSB will be interesting with Intel's license payment for Patent Portfolio + possible royalty payment, if any (royalty provision unknown) + AMD's royalty payments, if any. TPL's expenditures pursuant to the parties' Operating Agreement will off set PTSC revenues (50% split). Anticipated price range will probably be around $0.23 to $0.34.
2Q-10QSB will probably show licensing fee payments from Fujitsu, et al. (if they settled in Sept) + Intel's royalty payment (if any) + AMD's royalty payments (if any). Price range will probably be around $0.24 to $0.36.
Unexpected good news in the 2nd quarter to end of the fiscal year (ie. acquiring license agreements with big companies such as TI, Lucent, Philips, etc., for example) could spike PTSC's penny stock to the range of $0.28 to $0.45, compounded with positive earnings in 1Q, 2Q, 3Q & 4Q.
However, pursuant to 3Q-10QSB, fiscal year 2005, page 25, paragraph 1, PTSC scheduled an annual shareholders meeting to take place in the 2nd quarter of this calendar year to proposed an increase in authorized shares. "Should the shareholders not approved the proposal and we were unable to internally fund our operations, we would need to cease doing business and/or liquidate or sell our assets." It should be noted that this statement by PTSC was made 2 months prior to PTSC & TPL's settlement in June.
Pohl's approach to "boost awareness among local San Diego and Silicon Valley business media, as well as among the local financial community.." and "..among regional and national trade media, industry market anaylsts.." is a good plan. The only obstacle I see from getting the "word" out sooner, more frequent and louder for PTSC's "fresh & exciting story to tell" is TPL's approval.
I believe there's too many shares outstanding to make this penny stock fly for long term investors. If TPL manages to exercise their warrants when PTSC spikes to $0.50, $0.75 then $1.00, I wouldn't be surprise if PTSC proposes a reverse split.
PTSC, for at least 30 days, will be in position to apply for NASDAQ listing. NASDAQ listing will bring more attention to PTSC from household financial institutions. Thus, in my opinion, the chain reaction of events could create a supply & demand economic frenzy for individual & institutional investors too drive the stock into double digits.
In my opinion, residential long terms need to buy and/or hold really really long, and take the abuse from price shifting and stock bashers.
Hootchi,
What are your concerns for clarification?
FYI
"Last week of August 2005: Deadline on 60 day stay expires."
- if Judge Armstrong granted stay this week.
I assume 60 day stay begins from the day Judge Armstrong grants the parties' request for stay (which is still pending).
Again, have a great and safe July 4th weekend.
I agree. Great start to Summer '05 and I anticipate that the remaining 1/2 of the year to be great.
Feb 2005: License agreement w/PTSC & AMD.
Apr 2005: 1st quarterly profit report for 3rd quarter '05.
May 31, 2005: End of 4th quarter '05.
June 1, 2005: Master agreement signed. TPL initiates arrangements for Fujitisu & company meetings in Japan.
June 9, 2005: Judge Fogel dismisses PTSC v. Moore, et al.
June 15, 2005: 8k release and the announcement of David Pohl.
June 22, 2005: Stipulation for dismissal sent to Judge Armstrong in Intel v. PTSC (Pending).
June 29, 2005: Parties' request for 60 day stay.
July to Early August 2005: PTSC to release 4th Q/annual report.
Last week of August 2005: Deadline on 60 day stay expires.
Sept 2005 to April 2006: PTSC to release Q1, Q2 & Q3 reports.
Pursuant to the Commerical Agreement between P-Newco, TPL & PTSC, I (a long term shareholder) EXPECT, throughout this period and beyond, an aggressive campaign from TPL to settle w/Fujitsu, et al., and other potential infinging companies, or acquire new license agreements as result of the joined patents.
To all, have a great July 4th weekend !
4Q report to be released in August probably won't show licensing receivables since 4Q ended on 5/31/05. And it may be too soon to see significant royalty payments from AMD. Q1 & Q2, however, should be very interesting.
T4,
Thanks for mentioning Intergraph and Ampex. Very encouraging outlook for PTSC.
MORE NEWS FROM PTSC...
Patriot Scientific Names New Chairman/CEO; David H. Pohl to Lead Company in New Direction
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 15, 2005--Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC), a high-tech intellectual properties company working in the advanced microprocessor field, has named long-time board member David H. Pohl to the newly-created position of Chairman, CEO and President of Patriot Scientific.
"With the recent excitement surrounding our powerful new marketing opportunity created by our alliance with the TPL Group," Pohl said, "and with the revenue foundation that the new agreement provides for us to build upon -- we want to continue to move forward in achieving success and increase of shareholder value. This company is now poised and positioned to aggressively commercialize and license our valuable intellectual property portfolio."
Pohl will lay a foundation for future business by working closely with the Board to refine and implement the Board's vision in a forward-looking and comprehensive business plan, one that redefines the company and focuses Patriot on a number of future revenue opportunities. In assuming this new leadership role, Pohl draws on years of experience with Patriot, as well as decades of experience guiding new - often high-technology - business ventures. Pohl was most recently Of Counsel with the Encinitas, based law firm of Herold & Sager and was at one time a senior attorney with the large, prestigious national firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Ohio. He has served on Patriot's Board since 2001, and before that, served as a strategic business consultant for the firm. From 2001 to 2002, Pohl served as Vice President of Administration and Corporate Secretary for Patriot. As Board Chairman, Pohl replaces former Chairman Don Bernier, who resigned from the Board in December 2004.
Several recent and significant changes inspire this energized new direction. These include the company's first-ever profitable quarter this year, providing business development resources not previously available. Adding to that is a dramatic new agreement, announced last week, with The TPL Group, bringing to an end years of bitter legal disputes over the ownership of seven core-technology microprocessor patents. In addition, Patriot recently received independent validation of the performance of two new ultra-low-power array microprocessor technologies, IGNITE(TM) and INFLAME(TM). Taken together, these dramatic market changes prompted the Board's actions, creating an opportunity to move Patriot in a vigorous new marketplace direction.
"The agreement with the TPL Group last week changed the map for Patriot Scientific," Pohl explained. "Instead of our resources being caught up in litigation - and our being known as 'that little guy who's suing all the big guys,' we are now once again what we had always intended to be - an aggressive, innovative and dynamic intellectual properties company focusing on the international microprocessor and wireless market. Patriot is now anticipating a strong revenue stream that will enable it to focus its resources on effectively analyzing, developing and commercializing applications based on its patent portfolio, as well as on related business opportunities."
Patriot Scientific CEO and President Jeff Wallin and CFO Lowell Giffhorn have left the Company although Giffhorn remains on the Board.
"Our previous management performed well in a very difficult environment; in doing so, they helped the company during some demanding times," Pohl said. "However, our new opportunities require us to refocus Patriot Scientific, and the Board felt that a new and different management style was in the best interest of both the Company and our shareholders. Patriot Scientific will have a newly-focused business strategy, and it was the Board's opinion that new leadership will be required to see that strategy through. This is likely to include adding some new directors to enhance our current Board."
Most recently at Herold & Sager, and during the past decade, Pohl advised clients on legal and financial issues as well as strategic considerations affecting business and marketing decisions; created licensing agreements and dealt with strategic intellectual property issues for software manufacturing and sales. In addition he worked with the licensing of rights to use proprietary technology for telecommunications, marketing and e-commerce companies.
Pohl has a strong background in areas of financial corporate governance and leadership in entrepreneurial organizations, with specific focus on corporate financial responsibility, as well as business acquisitions. In the height of the last decade's high-technology growth Pohl served as Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Ohio. In that role, he advised the state's elected leaders on issues regarding entrepreneurial investments by state pension funds. Based on his leadership role and experience in financial services and governmental affairs, he has testified before Congress on behalf of the American Financial Services Association and helped to shape lending laws and regulations at both the state and Federal levels.
Previously Pohl helped lead members of publicly-traded Security Pacific Financial (now part of Bank of America) and the Gibraltar Financial Group (OTC.GFCN.PK) - both as they evolved out of traditional industry roles and into more multi-market financial organizations.
In a move to vigorously reach out to potential technology and applications partners, Pohl and the Board have retained Attention, a high-tech public relations/marketing communications firm.
"Attention has a reputation for 'getting the word out,' as well as showcasing companies to editors and reporters in the press," Pohl explained. "With their innovative media relations programs, Attention will help us elevate both public and media awareness of Patriot - and of our intellectual property product lines. At the same time that Attention is helping shape our market image and position, micro-cap experts at Hawk & Associates will continue to provide us invaluable investor-related support."
SO MUCH INFORMATION TO DIGEST THIS AFTERNOON !!!!!!!
Thanks for the post Talon.
Made calls to Hawk Associates (who handles investor relations for PTSC) and spoke to Ken regarding Bruce Bigelow's article.
I also spoke to Bruce Bigelow following my conversation with Ken.
Jeff Wallin mentioned, "there's going to be equal ownership of the company that's formed to manage the entire patent portfolio." Ken and I INTERPRET this as a possible new entity being formed by PTSC and TPL to manage the entire patent portfolio.
Bruce Bigelow informed me that he misstated the following: "a federal judge (should be superior court judge) in Santa Clara reaffirmed an arbitration award against Leckrone in a patent dispute with another inventor."
Bruce Bigelow informed me that the other inventor is J. Karl Cooper. Mr. Bigelow DID NOT MENTION the specific patent # that was in dispute between Leckrone and Cooper (I personally believe it's NOT '336 and other patents that were in dispute between PTSC and Moore, et al). I haven't done any research on Cooper v. Leckrone. Does anybody know if this case pertains to the bankruptcy matter that TPL & Leckrone is involved with ?? And could you please provide some background on this case. Thanks.
As to the last statement of the article regarding PTSC auditors. I thought that was unfair to shareholders and prospective shareholders when Bruce Bigelow did not mention the PTSC and AMD licensing agreement in Feb 2005.
Stay the course....
Sorry, I meant great "post"....
I personally believe that PTSC will hover around $0.13 to
$0.20, until the market hears news on Intel v. PTSC. Has anyone checked the docket on that case?
Via 8k or PR, I believe PTSC "should" inform its shareholders the status of INTEL v. PTSC as a result of the settlement between PTSC v. Moore, et al, and the signed '336 license agreement between INTEL and Moore, et al, dated 6/28/04.
INTEL's dual core chip Pentium D plus their joint venture with APPLE presents great potential. Which gives a greater incentive for INTEL to settle w/PTSC soon. "Darn that rock in the shoe."
I believe if the #1 chipmaker in the world settles the '336 infringment claim by PTSC - Sony, Fujitsu, Toshiba, NEC, Matsushita, et al, will be lining up at TPL's HQ w/checkbook at hand - payable to PTSC c/o TPL. Wow, I remember when PTSC was at $0.03....
Thanks for the great news !!
PTSC looking really good, as TPL takes care of the housekeeping.
Come on PTSC - Flex those muscles!!
FYI: Here the link regarding authorized increase from 400 million shares to 500 million shares (refer to page 6 & 7 of the letter to shareholders dated 3/17/05).
http://www.patriotscientific.com/corporate/investors/proxypackage2005.pdf
Thanks for the post..
Interesting how Pohl says he was "unable to say how much the new agreement would generate in revenues for patriot." I wonder if he probably meant the Master Agreement was sealed and confidential, and can't comment, or that he couldn't predict the future - refer to 6/7/05 PR "Global sales by POTENTIAL licenses of products applying the technologies by the jointly owned patents are estimated to be greater than $200 billion annually." No mention of compensation for unpaid licenses or fees.
Hopefully we can get more information from PTSC regarding the increase of 100 million shares per recent annual shareholders meeting - probably got more leverage on negotiating a deal.
Anyways, congrats to the longs and have a great weekend.
"PTSC doesn't need to do a thing, just need to be patient and get a percentage of the money TPL collected. Same to the shareholders, they should be patient too."
I agree - refer to QCOM and IBM. Royalties keep pouring in. And I believe that the high tech industry is on the upswing. Alot of news coming out regarding the next generation of semiconductors and cellular phones. If PTSC and INTC settle out, I could imagine IBM or TI positioning themselves for a buy-out on PTSC.
Settlement with PTSC and TPL Ltd is great news, surprised that PTSC closed in the RED.
Its also good to see that patents '336, '148 & '584 show Moore and Fish as co-inventors and PTSC as the sole assignee. No mention of Moore or TPL as co-assignees (no-brainer for jurors and a slam dunk for PTSC).
However, I am concerned on how Beatie employed "Higgins in challenging Moore's co-inventorship of the patents in suit." Refer to the Court's order on 3/8/05 #190 04cv618-JF. On 3/29/05, Judge Fogel also denied PTSC's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration - refer to #195 04cv618-JF.
If PTSC feels so strongly on admitting Higgins testimony, then why didn't PTSC's counsel appeal to the 9th Circuit? Probably was getting too expensive at that point. Does anybody know who the "Georgia Counsel" is for PTSC ?
Anyways, it looks exciting! With the recent news regarding AMD's dual-core chip and Apple's deal w/Intel, PTSC future looks bright!