Bolds and emphasis by me.

From the FAQs

A: The perception that there is a lack of transparency stems largely from the nature of the licensing business (ABSOLUTE BS..it stems from our BoD’s deliberate avoidance of communicating with shareholders). It begins with the fact that most prospective licensees do not proactively seek MMP Portfolio licenses. This can create a potentially contentious environment where the right of the Portfolio often need to be aggressively negotiated with each licensor. Any information beyond what is not absolutely essential or required by law for public disclosure can be damaging to this effort. Similarly, litigation over infringement, like most any litigation engaged in by corporations is generally not commented on until specific events are concluded. Also, even in the best of times the licensing business has had an episodic element to it (ABSOLUTELY AGREE…the episodic element is when TPL directs Alliacense to start licensing again). Unless and until a reasonable basis for forecasting future results becomes apparent, it would be inappropriate for us to make such speculations. While we understand shareholder frustration (NO YOU DON’T) over transparency, Patriot has had to work within these confines (You mean Leckrone’s rules). Unfortunately, this can lead to perceptions that there is an overall unreasonable or inappropriate lack of transparency. (Not Perceptions…Reality…How many shareholder letters and e-mails to the Company have gone unanswered?) That is not to say that we aren’t doing our best to increase transparency and will continue to do so (More BS…they could have been more transparent about the non binding Majority vote long before the FAQs), including assessing and differentiating information that truly needs to remain confidential and that which does not. Finally, there are several important factors that should be known which contribute to the success of the licensing business and we have been careful to enumerate these in the Risk Factors section of our annual report on Form 10K for the year ended May 31, 2011 and the quarterly report on Form 10Q for the period ended August 31, 2011. These are not boiler plate comments and we encourage you to read them carefully.

The allegations in the amended complaint were not boiler plate either. I suggest the BoD enumerates these in the Risk Factors section of the next report:

1. Incompetence of TPL’s management to run its business affairs causing it to squander and continue to squander over $45 million and its ensuing misconduct towards its JV Partner, Patriot, improperly designed to force Patriot to finance TPL’s on going losses.

2. TPL breached its fiduciary duties to Patriot by improperly commingling its expenses that it charged to their joint venture and by engaging in licensing activities designed to profit through over valuation of its own separate technology at the expense of the interests of the joint venture and Patriot.

3. TPL was paid its 15% totaling approximately $40 million and then some, out of the MMP licensing revenues derived to date

4. After the 15% TPL shared equally with Patriot 50% of distribution. Patriot believes that TPL has not paid Moore his share of their side of the net revenue and that Moore’s share of their side is 55%

5. TPL commenced on a spending binge. TPL grew its operations to support non MMP portfolios and technologies. TPL’s non MMP activities have not been profitable. Patriot is informed and believes TPL lost over $43 million on non MMP products, activities and technologies

6. By 2009 TPL’s cash woes worsened but it failed to scale back non MMP activities.

7. As such, it has and does continue to this date to experience a substantial “burn” which has rendered it insolvent. Patriot is informed and believes that TPL owes third parties in excess of $30 million.

8. In August 2009 TPL contended that in house work related to resisting patent re-exams were “extra” and outside the scope of its 15% off the top MMP licensing revenue. Its position was wrong and never agreed to by Patriot. Nonetheless, Patriot then agreed without any consideration to temporarily infuse additional cash into the JV beyond that called for under the parties’ agreements

9. This was done expressly based on assurance that TPL would drastically scale back its expenses and “burn” and would remain viable and based on projected MMP licensing revenue

10. Patriot (at TPL’s request) agreed to reduce the parties’ commitments under the terms of the PDS Operating Agreement to otherwise continuously maintain $8 million in capital. Also at TPL’s request, Patriot did not require PDS to make capital calls on its members.

11. Rather than accepting and expressing gratitude for relief from those obligations, TPL continued to seek funds from Patriot to support non MMP activities and its extraordinary overhead. Patriot has now refused to continue to support TPL financially any more than is legally required.

12. TPL’s response has been to threaten to shut down the licensing program. Further to try to coerce Patriot to loan it more money, TPL has focused on a new strategy of improperly diverting licensing revenue to itself through its licensing division Alliacense, contrary to its authority under the ComAg

13. MMP licenses were undervalued and Patriot has been damaged

14. TPL violated its duties to Patriot by exploiting for personal benefit the conflict in simultaneously licensing MMP and non MMP licenses with third party MMP infringers by charging the JV expenses of outside counsel devoted to pursuit of its own portfolios and other TPL intellectual property.

What I found to be most interesting was at the end of the complaint where it reads “Patriot Prays as follows”. In the original complaint PTSC prays for (damages, injunctions, accounting of expenses, etc) which is what the company has mentioned in their SEC filings (8K & 10Q). However, the 1st amended complaint added one more request (Below) which has, to my knowledge, never been stated by the company.

For a declaration of Patriot’s right to declare the ComAg terminated. (bolded and underlined by me)