From the K ....maybe this helps some...

....."Similar to the actions in the Northern District of California, the Asustek action in the Eastern District of Texas is inclusive of matters with respect to two patents owned by TPL that are not a part of the MMP Portfolio, and as such we are not engaged in this aspect of the litigation and defense."

....."On June 7, 2005, we entered into a Master Agreement (the “Master Agreement”) with TPL, and Charles H. Moore (“Moore”), the co-inventor of certain of our technology, pursuant to which we, TPL and Moore resolved all legal disputes between us. Pursuant to the Master Agreement, we and TPL entered into the Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of PDS (the “LLC Agreement”) into which we and Moore contributed our rights to certain of our technologies"

Since PDS was formed as an LLC with PTSC, TPL and Morre for 50% of the MMP only, then all costs that can be attributed to licensing expenditures for other TPL patents should and looks to be separated from the P&L statement of PDS. I can only assume that either the lawyers are tracking their time spent on all the patents and if the total expense for them is X dollars then if we are 3/5 of the patents being defended then 3/5 of the legal and other expenses would be assigned to PDS...unless of course expenses can be directly attributed to certian patents that would adjust that split.

Just an opinion for what it's worth.