I know there are more causes of actions than these in CM v TPL. How are these separate and distinct from our companies point of view. If true wouldn't this have caused us damages as well?

From the FAQs

Both Patriot’s and Mr. Moore’s lawsuits with TPL involve issues that in some manner pertain to the MMP Portfolio. However, Patriot’s and Mr. Moore’s legal actions and the underlying issues are separate and distinct.

Defendant Alliacense LLC’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action for cancellation on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED.The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Alliacense was formed for the purpose of assuming, and has since its inception carried out, the licensing activities that are the obligation of TPL under the Commercialization Agreements and that it assumed TPL’s rights and obligations in connection with such licensing activities, which Defendants fail to discuss.(See FAC, ¶ 2.)

Defendants Daniel McNary Leckrone, Michael Davis (“Davis”), and Alliacense’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action for conspiracy to commit fraud on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED.The FAC sufficiently alleges that Defendants knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed among themselves to charge exorbitant, unreasonable and illegitimate fees and expenses to Plaintiff, and the wrongful acts of the conspirators.(See FAC, ¶¶ 100-104; see 117 Sales Corp. v. Olsen (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 645, 649).

Alliacense’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action for breach of contract on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED.As stated above, the FAC alleges that Alliacense was formed for the purpose of assuming, and has since its inception carried out, the licensing activities that are the obligation of TPL under the Commercialization Agreements and that it assumed TPL’s rights and obligations in connection with such licensing activities, which Defendants fail to discuss.(See FAC, ¶ 2.)

Daniel Edwin Leckrone, Daniel McNary Leckrone, Davis, and Alliacense’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for injunctive relief on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED.Given that the demurrers are overruled as set forth above, the demurrer to the eighth cause of action is likewise overruled.