Thank you for your reply.

With regards to Foreign patents, specifically in the EU, I do know that the company looked into it independently a few years ago. However, I strongly suspect that such a move was impossible at the time because there was no way DL would have allowed it (competition for Alliacense). This situation likely continues since we do not have full or even majority control of PDS. As with my suspicion re: hesitation by members of the Creditors Committee to file the Appeal (my suspicion being that at least part of that hesitation was due to the associated cost), I suspect there would be an even greater hesitation to initiate action in the EU. It ain't free.

This points to another aspect of the whole - maybe possible - TPL/DL going into Chapter 7 BK scenario. If we could possibly gain full control of PDS via Chapter 7, the CC, DL and issues about how to pay would go away. PTSC would fund it. This assumes that action in the EU is determined to be adequately lucrative. A few years ago it apparently was not seen as such. But part of that equation at the time was probably how to make it work for DL (more money to him would have been the only way IMO). Perhaps with the DL problem out of the way, and perhaps a better licensing circumstance in the EU (bigger awards than previous?), it should be worth looking into. See the importance of the Chpt 7 scenario?

In my last talk with Cliff, about two months ago (after not communicating for nearly a year). I strongly suggested they look into the EU again, while the patents are still alive (though I believe we can still go after them for past infringement). The suggestion was based on the same arguments for doing so in the past, but with one potentially huge thing added. By going to the EU, this whole Grewal "patent prosecution history" issue goes away. And that is our biggest hurdle long term, IMO. He heard me, but made no commitments. The seed was planted.....

FWIW,

SGE