Previously I had copied and saved the following excerpt from Chuck Moore's website under patent ownership (everything in italics). This no longer exists on his website.

From Chuck Moore: I recently learned of this court document: The Stipulated Final Judgment of Patriot's inventorship suit. Note the phrase "TPL is at least co-owner of the [patents]" in paragraph 5. Somehow that became an issue to be adjudged. Without my knowledge. It added the imprimatur of a judge's ruling to Leckrone's claim.http://colorforth.com/PTO.htm

The vagueness of the phrase has several interpretations:

• TPL is co-owner with me (presumably 45%/55%) of my 50%
• TPL is co-owner with Patriot - 50%/50%
• TPL has more than 45% share with me (the qualifier "at least")
• TPL has more than 50% share with Patriot

Questions abound:

• Why did Carl Johnson sign a document that clouds Patriot's title?
• Why did my lawyer, F. Eric Saunders, not sign?
• Is the judgment valid without his signature?
• Who decided to conceal the document from me?

I'm told the time to appeal this verdict has long passed. Clearly I'm looking like a complete fool for trusting Leckrone, Cook and Saunders to look out for my interest. But I hadn't a clue that they weren't. How closely must you monitor and control your lawyer?

When I first read the stipulated judgement, I was curious about it because there apparently was no signture for Saunders (moore's attorney). I then asked Ronran why Moore would have a copy not signed by his own attorney. Ronran said that it is not uncommon for a client to see a copy without the signature. Out of curiousity, I called the clerk of the court and was told that everyone who needed to sign, did in fact sign. Anyway, the time to appeal has passed.

My question is this: If Moore prevails and it is determined that TPL does not co-own the patents with him, and if, in turn Moore dissolves his relationship with TPL (to include the commercialization agreement), will PTSC then jointly own the patents with only Moore?

If so, then would the agreement with Phoenix be null and void...therefore, leaving PTSC to begin licensing on it's own or would Moore and PTSC team up and together hire some other entity to begin licensing activities.

Corrections, comments always welcome

Laurie