At the risk of misintepreting ease, I think the point that ease is making is that one company, Alliacense is handling the licensing efforts of TWO separate TPL portfolios, the MCM and the MMP, with one client. I can see the seeming efficiencies in doing this, however, since TPL is not SOLE owner of the MMP, and PTSC is not partial owner of the MCM, they've allowed the representation by Alliacense of these two separately owned portfolios to muddy the waters and subject the target of the licensing to allow the combining of action on two separate portfolios, thus dragging PTSC's interests along with TPL's unrelated interests.

I think it's a valid point, IMO, and we can see they've done so with others as well, like Sony, Bosch, etc. I think the point could be made that if MMP Alliacences LLC was responsible for MMP licensing and prosectution, and MCM Alliacence LLC was responsible for MCM licensing, and they were completely separated endeavors, perhaps what has occurred with the lawsuit and the Judge's reasons for denial would not have occured.