Prior to the master agreement, I could find no press release issued by PTSC that informed shareholders of any ownership dispute. Wasn't it a material event worthy of informing shareholders? Also, why wasn't it mentioned in the 10QSB filed April 8, 2004?

10QSB (Filed: 21-01-2004)nothing about trade secret litigation

In December 2003 we filed several lawsuits in United States District Courts

against companies we contend are infringing on our patent number 5,809,336 (Sony, Fujitsu,Toshiba, NEC USA, Matsushita)

No press release on PTSC website about these law suits. Numerous form 4 filings in Nov 2003 and Jan 5-9 2004

10QSB (Filed: 08-04-2004)nothing about trade secret litigation

In February, with the consent of the defendants and ourselves, the above five actions were (again this referred to Sony, Fujitsu)

consolidated into the Fujitsu action in the Northern District of California under case number C035787.

In February 2004, Intel Corporation filed a lawsuit against us in the United

States District Court- Northern District of California, case number C040439, in

which they are requesting a declaratory judgment to keep us from bringing

actions against their customers and requesting the court to invalidate our

5,809,336 patent. We filed a counterclaim against Intel contending that they

also are infringing on our patent.

10KSB (Filed: 19-08-2004)FIRST MENTION OF MOORE/TPL OWNERSHIP SUIT

PATRIOT'S LIMITED ABILITY TO PROTECT ITS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAY INADVERTENTLY

ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS ABILITY TO COMPETE

A successful challenge to our ownership of our technology could materially

damage our business prospects. Our technologies may infringe upon the

proprietary rights of others.

We did not develop the technology which is the basis for our products.

This technology, which was originally known as the ShBoom technology, was

acquired through a series of agreements from one of two co- inventors. We have

been, and may again be, subject to claims from such prior parties related to the

technology. Such parties may also attempt to exploit the technology

independently of our rights to do so. The asset purchase agreement and plan of

reorganization between Patriot, nanoTronics Corporation and Helmut Falk was the

agreement under which we acquired the basic ShBoom technology. The agreement

also contained a number of warranties and indemnities related to the ownership

of the technology and other matters. We believe nanoTronics Corporation has been

liquidated and, due to Mr. Falk's death in July 1995, our ability to obtain

satisfaction for any future claims as a result of a breach of the agreement may

be limited.

Also in February 2004, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District

Court- Northern District of California, case number C040618, against Charles H.

Moore, Technology Properties Limited, and Daniel E. Leckrone. The Company is

requesting the court to declare inventorship and ownership on each of its

granted patents related to the suits discussed above and other unasserted claims

of infringement Patriot believes it has.

The Intel lawsuit has been stayed pending the results of the Moore

lawsuit.