You wrote:

"TPL must not market patent portfolios in which PDS does not have an interest with the MMP Patent Portfolio." The way I interpret this, to have it make any sense, is that a bundle of the MMP and other patents constitutes a larger "patent portfolio" consisting of the MMP PLUS OTHER. If this were not the intended interpretation/intent of this sentence, IMO it would simply say "TPL must only market the MMP". So what this is saying is that IF TPL wishes to license any of the other patent portfolios it represents, it MUST BE BUNDLED WITH AN MMP LICENSE."

I'm not sure how you perverted what the PR said into somehow PTSC was now preventing TPL from marketing other patents it likely has a contractual obligation to market, UNLESS, it marketed those along with the MMP.

It makes perfect sense as written. "TPL must NOT market patent portfolios in which PDS does NOT have an interest (we know PDS' only interest is in the MMP) WITH the MMP Patent Portfolio."

You're interpretation REQUIRES TPL TO MARKET these other patent portfolios along with any MMP marketing efforts. If your interpretation was correct, why would the language not read:

Effective immediately, TPL MUST MARKET patent portfolios in which PDS does not have an interest with the MMP Portfolio.

In actuality, it reads the must NOT market them with the MMP.

Coupling that with the FACT that PTSC filed a lawsuit that we can assume is geared toward enforcement of these resolutions, it appears clear that PTSC is asserting its rights through the MA that TPL/Alliacense work MMP deals independent of other deals TPL is working, and with the recent HTC filing, it was now made public that TPL was conflating the negotiations. For PTSC's board NOT to act, would arguably be a breach of their fiduciary responsibility.