"I would bet that PTSC could've objected to being an included party to Asusteks filing in the NDoT stating they were not legally associated with the MCM and since PTSC has no interest in the MCM PTSC would request that the MMP (in your scenario legally separated) be handled differently."

Yeah, they could have argued that. Do you know if they would have been successful? You could assume they would be successful, and then I would have to bring up another time you seemed pretty sure about a legal outcome - Higgins.

"The J3 were big on having PTSC be included in the original filing in the EDoT b.c they didn't want to allow for a second shot for the MMP once the EDoT litigation was decided."

Again, a pretty big assumption on why the J3 did something. My own personal opinion is that is not why PTSC was included as a litigant by the J3 as the court would recognize that if ptsc intitiated litigation after TPL lost, it would pretty much be double dipping, and the court would frown on that.

You also seem to make the assumption that the ONLY reason we lost the motion was because MCM was included and Fogel didn't/couldn't reuqire separate actions for the separate portfolios. That is not a conclusion I came up with after reading the Denial.