This has been brought up a number of times as some sort of statement of comfort, or some assessment on how having a Contingent legal fee arrangement will ultimately translate to PTSC likely receiving significant enough MMP licensing fees to justify a much higher share price.

Not to pick on anyone promoting or hanging their hopes on this line of thinking, but the statement below is a good representative of that thought that's been posted here:

"Others posters have very wisely pointed out that if our attorneys continue to work on a contingency then they MUST see a better than average chance that they will make money. I suspect that successful firm do not take case on a contingency is the odds are only 50-50."

I think it is unwise and a mistake to assume that just because we have a Contingent arrangement counsel, that somehow, their internal calculation of sufficient compensation for their legal efforts means that PTSC will receive enough in damages awards to drive our stock price. There is no correlation between the two, and infact, we have just witnessed the test of this presumption play itself out with the results of HTC trial. I'm sure we're all confident that neither Counsel nor Client is satisfied with their share of the reward; but there it is, an actual example of our successful contingency fee trial resulting in an Infringment verdict !

I am not being negative, and I acknowledge the potential link that is being drawn from the contingency relationship, but to be honest, I put little to none faith in the value of that argument at this point in time.

Let me also add that we do not know, and I have seen any indication, that Agility will take on any other infringers with a Contingency fee arrangement, but I certainly hope they do. I also suspect that the present ITC representation is based on an hourly pay scale, as likely could be other matters (Motions) before the NDOC that relate to the completed HTC trial.

Agility has some soul searching if they decide to going forward and continue Contingent representation on future cases. That said, THEIR calculation of what is sufficient minimum compensation from a future engagement is vastly different than what financial recovery PTSC needs to receive from the case. Additionally, TPL and PTSC have such limited cash available to pay for legal representation, (and we still need to cover "costs" ie: Court, Depos, Expert fees, PTSC's own lawyer, etc), that I think that a Contingency relationship is really our only practical hope if we even want to prosecute the MMP Patents at this stage.

PTSC, as a publically traded company, needs far far far more money than what a boutique law firm like Agility does. Agility has an open future, other revenue generating clients, and owners who need to draw a minimum salary. PTSC has a finite future, a very narrow remaining period of revenue producing life, and within that extremely limited timeframe, there are 400 Million shares that need to rise in value and be sold to others who think it will rise still further.