Hi BSISSAR,
while I find your idea refreshing and positive I'm quite sure it can't be based on a legal ground.

The infringing companies only use the legal ways to protect themselves - in no way they can be held responsible for the decline of the shareprice, especially as it is very hard to substantiate the statement the shareprice has only decreased because of the USPTO (non-)activity. Every lawyer would refer to the management, the business itself, the overall market etc.
And it's even more difficult to prove that ONE company and its requests at the USPTO have caused the shareprice to go down. Example: How much would the shareprice go down if a small company "uses" the USPTO and therefore "delays" the whole process in opposite if a big company does it?

At last the "killing" argument is PTSC's shareprice development of the last four years:
Despite 70 companies which licensed the MMP the shareprice has crashed - though it seems obvious that a license deal has NO influence to the shareprice.

I'd really support an action against all of these companies, but I suspect they are all behaving "legally" while in the same time morally questionable.
My one and only "enemy" in the current situation is the USPTO and the huge influence/pressure lobbyists exert on it - and I'm still hoping the whole PTSC/TPL/Moore-situation will find a constructive end IF the USPTO ultimately does their work.

GLTY