Thanks BaNoss

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Technology Properties Ltd., Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Ltd. (collectively, “TPL”) hereby provide this Notice to clarify the prior Notice of Filing of Chapter 11 Proceeding and Notice of Automatic Stay of Actions filed earlier today (877 Doc 425; 882 Doc 438).1 Although that notice correctly stated that actions against Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) are automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362, it should have no impact on the current schedule of these actions as it relates to TPL’s claims against Plaintiffs, which are separate and may be disaggregated. See Halmar Robicon Group, Inc. v. Toshiba Int'l Corp., 127 Fed. Appx. 501, 502-503 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 for claims against debtor stayed; counterclaims may proceed) (emphasis added) citing Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote International, Inc., 190 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Maritime Elect. Co. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1205 (3rd Cir. 1992). See also Matter of U.S. Abatement Corp., 39 F.3d 563, 568 (5th Cir. 1994); In re Merrick, 175 B.R. 333 (9th Cir. BAP 1994).2

Dated: March 21, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

AGILITY IP LAW, LLP

By: /s/ James C. Otteson

James C. Otteson

149 Commonwealth Drive

1 Counsel for Defendants apologizes for the multiple notices about this issue. As can be seen from the prior notice document, it was filed by bankruptcy counsel who is not counsel of record in this action. Had counsel of record in this action been consulted beforehand, these issues would have been clarified in the original notice.

2 To the extent that they can proceed without TPL, claims against other Defendants are also not stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc., 23 F.3d 241, 245-46 (9th Cir. 1994) (Section 362 does not automatically stay actions against non-debtor parties); Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote Intern., Inc., 190 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“It is clearly established that the automatic stay does not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor”) (internal quotation omitted).