"Please explain how you are going to hold the USPTO examiners accountable?

Or, for that matter, the Ex parte requestors?"

I'm sorry, I must have missed a PR or something. I don't recall where it was mentioned that the USPTO examiners had forced PTSC's management and BOD to put all of their "business eggs" in the one MMP basket while at the same time articulating that they were pursuing other paths to take advantage of the MMP cash windfall. Did they also require them to take much of that cash they earned early on and distribute it to warrrant holders, share holders, and BOD and management Members, without the foresight to see that their elaborated upon M&A "umbrella" plan might need some cash for that proverbial "rainy day"?

Also, was there a memo issued by the BOD to all the "notified" infringers, that they were expected to just sit back and "enjoy it" as Bob Knight was infamously quoted as saying.

If I can get my hands on copies of the appropriate communications and rulings, I'll be happy to discuss these issues with the USPTO and the Ex Parte requestors. I agree, they should have had the decency to have checked with PTSC management to verify that a Plan B was in place that would assure the sustainability of the pps prior to them doing their jobs and exercising their rights respectively. Afterall, how can a public company BOD and management team with a focus on IP licensing ever be expected to think they might be victimized by the oh-so-rare re-examination process and that it might interrupt the gravy train of licenses they had so subtly publicized to the business world.

Perhaps in retrospect as a settlement with the USPTO, we can ask that they provide training to PTSC as to how they are able to post volumes of information at every step of the way in the re-exam process providing much transparency into that process, with an eye toward holding them accountable for the communcation limiting agreement the USPTO forced CJ and Pohl to negotiate with TPL. I'll get right on that.