Your first paragraph is non-sensical. I provided you with proof through their PR's and supported by my discussions with the company that they no longer PR all licenses signed. That's not an issue that stopped being true as of Nov. 30th is it? Please let us know if you heard of another change in the policy! So yes, the evidence points to the almost certain probability that the additional $6.8M or so since Nov. 30 came from an unnannounced license signing or from several of them. If they didn't announce five of them from last quarter, why are you surprised they haven't announced one or more from the current quarter?

As for your second point, even if we were to take your speculation as possible, when you consider that statistically, most re-exams result in a recertification, and typically a stronger patent, the probability would have been that your hypothetical contingency would have been fulfilled. For the company, as it did, to state several times in several different ways that they had received all the money they would get from the J's (including one-time payment comments in PR's and filings), knowing that there was a likelihood more was coming would leave them exposed to lability. Furthermore, it's pretty silly to think that these companies would leave that issue to be decided by a process through which either side had little control of either outcome or timing. Your hypothesis would fail business 101, (though perhaps that strengthens your argument when considering the PTSC team, lol).

Lastly with respect to that, if your theory were to hold water, why would PTSC mention the funds, but not the source of them if it were from a contingency as you cite. Hardly as reasonable as you argue.