To your lucid explanation I will add the following...

I recall reading something to the effect that TPL had raised the same 10 points, raised by PUBPAT, when they were contesting PTSC's ownership of the patents...

If indeed those issues were litigated in the S.F. Federal Court then that would be raised by PTSC as a basis of objecting to any Stay Motions filed by defendants in this case...

It was further implied that since PUBPAT did not name TPL in their EXPARTE applications to Patent Office, this may be an effort by TPL trying to tie up all the looses ends, so to speak, by raising the matter in a way that may be disposed off, once an for all, as being Res Judicata...

GLTA

Gil...