"In the event that one or more of the foregoing adversely affects TPL’s financial condition, TPL’s ability to continue to aggressively pursue the licensing of the MMP Portfolio on behalf of PDS could be severely impacted which would in turn adversely affect our revenue and cash flow."

Surely somewhere in one or more of the agreements between PTSC, PDS and TPL there is a clause relating to the responsibilities of TPL and its downstream associates to [aggressively] pursue MMP licensing opportunities and to use best efforts.

"Best efforts" does not mean "second best" efforts - it would mean the MMP takes top priority when effort is expended. Thus 'effort' for other TPL portolio assets would not be allowed to detract from MMP effort.

What are the risks of PTSC aggressively hold TPL accountable? Does PTSC hold TPL directly accountable, or is it PDS that must hold TPL accountable? This is a legal question based on the PTSC-PDS-TPL legal agreements - attorneys??

Are the risks different if action were to be taken (a) now, (b) after the Markman is finally put to bed, (c) after the Barco motion-to-strike judicial decision is handed down, (d) after a trial concludes against Barco, .....

Does anyone know if PTSC has already formulated a detailed strategy should TPL fold or cease MMP operations (if they haven't already)?

I'd rather see PTSC go down fighting than go down cowering, which is how I feel they are at the moment.