<2. On April 25, 2008, TPL filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that plaintiffs infringe the MMP patents. These patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“the ’336 patent”), 5,784,584 (“the ’584 patent”), 5,440,749 (“the ’749 patent”), and 6,598,148 (“the ’148 patent”). TPL has sought to have this action assigned to Judge Ward.>

Question #1 is whether that last sentance adds anything to the pleading? Does it serve any purpose to the Calif court? Obviously, it could be viewed as a bluff for all the fence-sitters to see. If we assume that what was in the 10Q was really it, (meaning we caved big time), would TPL/PTSC take this much of a risk, just for the benefit of perhaps getting a few fence-sitters to sign?

Of course, I am assuming that kowing the Js settlement would have some impact on how the judge acted in another case, human nature being what it is. So,

Question #2 is whether there is any real possibility of getting the case assigned to judge Ward? If not, then there is more liklihood that mentioning his name in the filing has some other intended purpose.

Do we have any legal scholors in the house? Opty