<Perhaps it would helpful to remove the double negative">

Actually I think there is missing commas, which tend to clarify the intent of the passage. "in which PDS does not have an interest" is a clarifying clause referencing the other portfolios and should be separated from the rest of the sentance. I suggest commas accidently ommited.

<TPL must not market patent portfolios, in which PDS does not have an interest, with the MMP Patent Portfolio.>

Contrary to what SGE has suggested, I think if costs are properly assigned by Alliacense, PTSC should not have any complaints. The higher throughput at Alliacense the lower the overall cost of licensing for all portfolios. However, this only is workable if PDS has some input as to what is an acceptable price for each MMP license. If the incentive for a package deal is for TPL to unilaterally negotiate a lower the MMP price, (And the filing makes it clear that unlilateral approval was happening) then there is an obvious conflict of interest.

I suspect that the sealed documents contain the smoking gun needed to hopefully end the conflict of interest. And those documents may have led the independent member of the PDS management committee to see the light and sign off on the recent resolution. It is hard for me to believe that the PTSC representative on the PDS management committee (CJ) has never before asked for such a resolution. I'm sure it was suggested numerous times over the years. What is different, must be the documented proof, so independent guy can no loger look the other way.

All IMHO, Opty