the p9 is a pretty definitive statement, I agree.

(if it's not just sloppy writing)

could be that it is all in effect Taylor/UConn's IP, and POET is the "master licensee" (who can then solely sublicense it onwards to 3rd parties), then it makes sense.

alternatively, if something has indeed been forward-licensed by PTK to another party, then Q2 reports (and afterwards) should tell the tale.

imo, not enough concrete information right now to say one way or the other.

sorry.

R.