Also in February of 2007, a petition was filed with the Patent and Trademark office by an independent non-governmental entity. The petition requests that certain of our microprocessor patents be invalidated on the grounds of the alleged existence of previously undisclosed prior art. While we cannot guarantee that the petition will be unsuccessful, we strongly believe in the validity and enforceability of the microprocessor patents which are the subject of the petition, and believe the petition is without merit.

As separate applications for re-examination had already been filed with the Patent and Trademark Office by parties involved in the patent litigation pending in Texas, we found it curious, but not alarming, when we learned of the apparently unrelated application filed by the purported public-interest group, including some gratuitous and disparaging statements included in their publicity-seeking press release.

Claiming that a patent should not have been issued due to the existence of prior art is a strategy that is often used defensively by companies seeking to avoid liability for patent infringement. Various efforts to claim the existence of prior art have been dealt with by our licensing team and their attorneys in negotiations with companies that at first had resisted licensing but later signed license agreements.

Attorneys for Patriot Scientific and the TPL Group are dealing with a constant flow of communications and activity related to the Texas litigation. An important claims construction hearing is scheduled for May 3, 2007, in which the respective parties must offer presentations to defend or attack the validity of the claims upon which the patents in issue are based. We understand that the outcome of that hearing may not be known for 30 days or more after the hearing is concluded. The ultimate trial is scheduled for November, 2007. A schedule of due dates as currently published on the court's calendar is being posted on the Patriot Scientific website at www.PTSC.com.