Didn't they leave the door open again for such activities on the part of TPL by virtue of the settlement agreement? It wasn't an assumption on Moore's part, it is stated in the 10Q filed in October 2011 p. 21
On October 6, 2011, we settled our dispute with TPL regarding the management of the MMP Portfolio. Pursuant to the terms of the executed settlement agreement, TPL has agreed to have PDS take the following actions: 1) allocate to PTSC $1,100,000 at the rate of five and ten percent of future distributions due to TPL as a member of PDS, 2) TPL has agreed to increased review and procedures by PDS and us on all MMP Portfolio licensing, 3) we have agreed to have PDS pay TPL for certain litigation and reexamination support services at the rate of $172,000 for June 2011, and $86,000 per month thereafter until 60 days after the Markman hearing in the current patent infringement litigation, 4) the parties have agreed to established guidelines and procedures relating to proposed license arrangements to be entered into by TPL involving the MMP Portfolio patents and one or more other patents within TPL’s portfolio that is not an MMP Portfolio patent, and 5) a procedure for allocating revenue between the MMP Portfolio patents and the non-MMP Portfolio patents, if needed.
(emphasis by me)
Just imagine this....BoD instructs Carl to tell DL, at a PDS board meeting involving none other than Carl and DL....not enough money is coming to PTSC for that commingled license, DL says ok I'll give you 10% more but my litigation support expenses just went up 15%, to which Carl responds "that seems fair."
