1. Might PTSC and TPL file a motion to transfer to EDoT as they tried to do in 2008? (see yellow highlight below)

2. Looks as if TPL has been commingling license agreements long before the mystery license agreement mentioned in the 2010 lawsuit (PTSC vs TPL). Although it states that we were not engaged in that aspect of litigation and defense, how likely is it that the BoD/PDS agreed to pay expenses related to this? (see blue highlight below)? FYI…Asustek also purchased a Core Flash portfolio license from TPL

Patent Litigation

On February 8, 2008, we, TPL and Alliacense Ltd. were named as defendants in three separate lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Asustek Computer, Inc., HTC Corporation, and Acer, Inc., and affiliated entities of each of them. On February 13, 2008, the Asustek claims were amended to include claims against MCM Portfolio, LLC (Alliacense and MCM Portfolio are TPL-related entities), which do not involve us.

The Asustek case seeks declaratory relief that its products do not infringe enforceable claims of the '336, '584 and '749 patents. The Asustek case also seeks a similar declaration 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. The Acer case seeks declaratory relief that its products do not infringe enforceable claims of the '336, '584 and '749 patents. The HTC case similarly seeks declaratory relief that its products do not infringe enforceable claims of those three patents and the '148 patent.

On April 25, 2008, we and TPL filed five patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against HTC, Acer and Asustek. These suits allege infringement by HTC and Acer with respect to the '336 '749 '584 and '148 patents; and by Asustek with respect to the '336, '749 and '584 patents. On June 4, 2008, we and TPL filed patent infringement lawsuits against those parties in the Eastern District of Texas with respect to the ‘890 patent of the MMP Portfolio. 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 accordingly we are not engaged in this aspect of the litigation and defense (collectively, these cases are referred to as the "T-3" Litigation).

Motions to dismiss or transfer the Northern District of California actions to the Eastern District of Texas were heard on September 19, 2008 by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel and subsequently denied. As a result, the Texas Actions have been dismissed by Stipulation. The Northern California cases are in the early discovery phase. The Court will likely set trial in late 2009 or early 2010.

On December 22, 2008, we announced that Asustek had purchased a MMP Portfolio license, leaving HTC and Acer as the remaining defendants in the above action.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/patriot-scientific-corp/10-q-quarterly-report/2009/04/09/section16.aspx