Is the situation that ACER et al; are trying to insinuate that TPL does not have an ownership interest in the MMP and as such the have no right to block them from using the Papers that CM shared with Acer et al;

And this Pacer is merely attesting to the fact that while the amount of ownership in not precisely known, TPL is AT LEAST a part owner ( i.e owns more >0%) and no one really cares how much since all the commercialization rights are within Alliacense and Alliacense has a distribubution arrangement for distributing net licensing fees.

if as long as they are >0% owner CM had no right to pass the papers to ACER without TPL permission as part owner.

Also is there an issue that Leckrone already testified when he spoke to the Barco ( I think folks) he did so not as an Attorney but under the scope of his employment as TPL president and not as an ATTORNEY and therefore he can't argue that TPL has attorney client privelege but needs to argue that information shared amonsts CO-OWNERS is treated with the Privelege as information shared Attorney and Client and THERFORE as long as TPL is at least >0% owner then the documents were handed over to ACER et al by CM without TPL permission as co-owner and must be destroyed as would any other docuement that VILOATED A-C privelege.

MOreover as was the case with B&O breaching A-C privelege Should TPL and PTSC request that the court NOT ONLY required that Acer's attorneys DESTROY the DOCUMENTS and that t any knowledge direct or extrapolated from said Docuements be considered FRUIT OF TE POISONOUS TREE ( got that from LA law :) ) BUt TPL et al should requets that ACER et al's attorneys be REMOVED from the case and fined and censured for teh willful violation of A-C privelge !!!