I find the law very confusing and not logical....TPL seems to fit the "patent troll" argument that I believe PUBAT used...their business model is acquiring patents and monetiizing them. But it is a legitimate business model. I guess you are deemed a patent troll if your only product is the monetizing of the patent. I always felt the term patent troll was used to paint the patent owner as someone looking for "free money"......which is not true. Even if you did not develop the patent, a company/person should be able to purchase and monetize the patent. If there is risk, there should be reward. Not all patents are profitable. Companies acquire patents to protect their products and to monitize them.

i found an interesting article http://lesusacanada.org/portlicense that addresses etablishing a domestic industry. The company that is discussed is Freescale Semiconductor. TPL acquired Freescale. The article does state the steps required by the ITC to establish a domestic industry based on licensing.

If TPL cannot establish a domestic industry requirement....what then? PTSC's half of the patent is still valid. I cant see this as being a big issue. TPL can still negotiate the license. The license amounts are based on the MMP patent, not 2 companies splitting the revenue. Maybe I just dont understand the legal argument TPL is confronted with. Even if TPL loses, how does it change things for the companies required to obtain an MMP license for their products? There is still PTSC. They would still need the license.

my opinion with minimal understanding of the law.

teremoto