"Does this mean that we should expect absolutely no license activity before the case is over?Which means, even if the USPTO came out with a positive decision on Monday, we should still expect no license activity?Is this non activity also a breach of the commercialization agreement?Could that mean yet another suit against TPL

Anybody"

Also consider that all press releases indicate TPl and Patriot as being co-owners of the TPL. The USPTO list Moore as the inventor.

This is a statement from CM website:

"Chuck Moore has never been employed by TPL, and he is shown as a TPL group officer. Chuck, Chet, and YP all requested the removal of their information from any TPL websites in August 2009. As of today, the TPL group websites remain unchanged."

http://greenarraychips.com/home/news/docs/GA-Press-2010-002.pdf

CM was listed as CTO for years and never seemed to have any issues with that circumstance before this dispute over ownership. Could TPL be insinuating that Moore was employed By TPL when he invented the technology, or that he was in employment after the transfere of ownership and that was part of the deal? Or is there a dispute with the Greenarrays Technology and CM was employed while he invented that? Or a combination of all of the above? IMO there exist an ownership dispute and things are being put on hold until it is unraveled by the courts

Perhaps the reason for the delay in the USPTO and especially the lack of licensing is due to ownership disputes between Moore and TPL? If TPL is not getting paid, or a hold on funds is in process why go to the expense of negotiation, unless they include the Flash Portfolio that has no such problems. Patriot concludes this and then inturn sues TPL. Could this be a reason why some court documentation is being sealed? And also why PTSC stated in a 10Q that it was solely dependent on licensing of the MMP for revenue as someone had pointed out? Perhaps they were trying to influence a court decision? Also, who assigned the power of attorney to Henneman with the USPTO. Was it the owner Moore, or the owner TPL, or was it both in agreement at the time?Technically, should Henneman even been legally authorized to make these responses?The ramifications of this ownership issue could be vast.There is so much going on behind the scenes...as always, and yet as always, another excuse to keep us uninformed.

Enquiring minds want to know.

AJMO