BaNosser: We have no way of knowing, nor does TPL/PTSC. The clause resides in the individual contracts, which are privy only to those entered in the contract (unless a later subpeona causes the documents to be revealed).

I've described how the US Gov't won't enter a contract without this clause. I've advised as to how all my past employers in the defense/areospace industry wouldn't enter a contract without this clause as a matter of corporate policy. And I've suggested that many corporations (e.g., the automobile industry) likely have this same policy because they recognize the vulnerability they expose themselves to without the use of this clause (at a level that could literally put them out of business due to the huge volumes involved).

Regarding the latter, we KNOW that statements have been made such as "there are an average of over 150 microprocessors used in a BMW". This doesn't mean that they are going after BMW or any other actual car manufacturer. They are just making a point re: volume of infringement. This doesn't mean that the auto industry is out of the picture, only that they'll be going after the suppliers to that industry (which is ultimately the same). The supply chain to that industry is huge. Parts go into other parts that become part of other components until you've built an entire car. I've read that a full 20% of the US workforce supports the auto industry (seems fat to me, but in some parts of the country it's the bread and butter). So, to capture infringement in this industry (and any other), all they have to do is "drill down" through the supply chain. They'll undoubtedly nail some/many intermediate suppliers (who didn't use the clause) right down to the ultimate, basic supplier of those chips. They cannot escape liability (unless they've already settled).

I've advised of how, on those rare occasions where my employers were hit with a notice from a patent holder, we simply responded that we incorporate Patent Indemnification clauses in all of our contracts as part of our Standard Terms and Conditions as corporate policy. We would further advise that we acquired the suspect products and services (e.g., manufacturing processes) in question from supplier X, and suggest they coordinate with them. We were not offended by the notice, as we understood that the patent holder would have no real way of knowing whether we used the clause as policy, or in the specific case, without making an inquirey. And I mentioned the word "rare" - this was the case I believe because it is widely known in that industry that the clause is used extensively - again due to the huge volumes of product involved (e.g., my last employer made target detectors for smart bombs and missiles for the DoD and friendly foreign governments).

It could be argued that the 300-500 companies we have put on notice may in reality be a much smaller number due to use of the clause. I would argue that we have only hit the "big names", and as we drill down though all the supply chains in all the industries, the number will ultimately be exponentially higher. We could capture all the suppliers who didn't chose to incorporate the clause (they benefitted financially from infringement) right down to the ultimate chip maker, who cannot escape (has nobody to point the wicked finger at).

This is my big source of frustration.... The number of companies we've engaged is only the extreme tip of the iceberg IMO, and things, in this light, are moving really slow. And our dismal P/E multiple due to a total lack of recognition of how big this thing really is (and how much money the patents are ultimately worth).

Hope this helps.....

SGE