b. The forecasts included as Exhibit B-1 are based on the following MMP-specific facts and assumptions:

The favorable outcome of the HTC litigation will influence infringers in a positive

direction toward licensing rather than litigating and the positive Markman from that litigation is deemed determinative in cases that have not settled. Companies that are not Respondents in the ITC or Defendants in the Northern District are

also incented to purchase licenses. Additional waves of litigation are filed, likely in excess of 30 companies, but no parallel ITC case is filed because an Exclusive Order (exclusive remedy in the ITC) would be nearly moot by the expiration of the patents. The forecast assumes that costs related to any subsequent litigation effort remain approximately the same, the most significant of which is the litigation counsel

contingency arrangement. The Markman ruling from the NorCal Case is deemed determinative in these additional rounds of litigation. TPL’s forecast assumes half of the remaining MMP revenue comes from litigants, while half is from non-litigants. Because of the different contingency percentage related to litigants versus non-litigants, TPL’s forecast predicts approximately twice the amount of revenue coming from PDS to TPL will be from non-litigants.