Thanks for finding that date for the CFP. So I guess I was wrong in that apparently TPL began representing the CFP a bit earlier than I thought. But your info, compared to the PACER, reveals that the citation is wrong. How could TPL "discuss" licensing of CFP patents before they had any rights/obligations regarding those patents? They simply couldn't/wouldn't.

BTW, I specifically looked for that CFP date and somehow (amazingly - I can read) missed it. Looked again, and there it was. I must be losing it! LOL

Thanks again,

SGE