http://patriotscientific.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=262&Itemid=29

On April 12, 2010 the Company filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego against TPL alleging breach of a $1 million promissory note obligation for which repayment was due Patriot on February 28, 2010. (trial now set for April 2011)

On April 22, 2010 it filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against TPL and Alliacense which was placed under seal provisionally by the court at the defendants' request.

On August 12, 2010, the Court considered defendants' request to seal the file indefinitely and to compel private arbitration of the dispute and denied both Motions.

On August 13, 2010 the Court provisionally allowed some file redactions pursuant to a Motion filed by TPL and will decide the appropriateness of those redactions on September 30, 2010.

The Complaint makes several allegations against TPL and Alliacense, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, contract interference, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment, while also seeking declaratory relief over specific contractual disagreements.

The Complaint further seeks an accounting of revenues and expenses charged to the PDS joint venture, while also engaging in licensing activities designed to profit TPL at the expense of the interests of PDS and Patriot.

"We had originally felt that discussions aimed at addressing a variety of issues, including the matter related to our April 22, 2010 action and the restructuring of the 2005 agreements that govern the management of the MMP(TM) Portfolio, represented the best approach to resolving the issues between the parties and for providing continuity to the licensing effort," said Carlton Johnson, Patriot Scientific Corporation's Executive Committee Chairman. "Our position is and remains one in which Patriot would have and maintain an equal or greater voice with all decisions relating to the MMP licensing. Up until now we had deferred making any announcement that a successful renegotiation of the relationship would occur. However, this process has taken far longer than we anticipated and where we were once hopeful that we were close to settling a number of differences, we now intend to vigorously resume the litigation process. We will provide details on the litigation as circumstances permit, however we ask our shareholders to appreciate that we remain under some contractual restrictions in regard to public disclosures pertaining to the MMP(TM) Portfolio, and we also wish to avoid any public sharing of information that could impair our litigation strategy.

Why did it take until 2010 for there to be discussion aimed at restructing the 2005 agreements?

Why did it take Carlton Johnson until 2010 to now state that “our position is and remains one in which Patriot would have and maintain an equal of greater voice with all decision relating to the MMP licensing?"

How did PTSC learn about the commingled license agreement? My guess is that since Moore filed his suit months after PTSC filed theirs, Moore must have learned about it from the files at court. Wasn’t there a window of opportunity for any one to have reviewed most of the documents before they were sealed?

corrections welcome