This paragraph is an interesting read. That fact that Daniel Leckrone personally made the trip to Belgium, to present his infringement case, certainly gives good reason to see why they filed the motion regarding his inappropriate contact acting as counsel. On the other hand I find it interesting that Daniel Leckrone was able to meet with the CEO of Barco. Companies like this face lawsuits all the time. While the officers of said companies may be aware of the lawsuits, you can be assured they rarely get personally involved. It does give some credence regarding the potential value of the MMP portfolio. With that said, TPL still looks to be getting desperate. I think we've hit the proverbial wall regarding the flow of licenses. I believe TPL will have to fight and claw for every ounce of MMP licensing going forward. Consequently that doesn't bode well for us in the short term, IMO.

"On November 16, 2009, Daniel Leckrone, the CEO of TPL and an attorney himself, communicated directly to Barco (without even notifying Barco’s litigation counsel), and met with Barco's CEO in Belgium. At that meeting, Mr. Leckrone presented a PowerPoint accusing Barco of infringing the ‘584 patent, as well as others, and claiming damages against Barco for sales for infringing the ‘584 patent beginning in 1999. On December 10, 2009, rather than adding the ‘584 to their counterclaim against Barco, Defendants instead filed a motion to dismiss Barco’s complaint as related to the ‘584 patent, on the basis that there was no “case or controversy,” because the asserted claim 29 had been amended in reexamination, and there had been no assertion of that amended patent against Barco since the reexamination certificate issued in July 2009. On January 22, 2010, Barco filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss. That opposition pointed out the numerous false factual statements and legal errors contained in TPL’s motion to dismiss.
On January 29, 2010, TPL filed a reply, ignoring what Barco had shown to be blatant incorrect factual statements and legal positions in the motion to dismiss, and attaching a covenant not to sue Barco with respect to the ‘584 patent. The covenant is dated January 29, 2010 and it is signed by the same individual, Daniel Leckrone, who was at Barco accusing it of infringing the ‘584 patent just the previous November."