<IMO, the timing of his infringement cases against major companies is meant to showboat and in general try to quickly prop up or enhance the value of his own patents.>

My thinking has been along the same lines.

If the prices of past licenses have been inflated, TPL would want to use that pricing history in any litigation involving potential new licensees for these other portfolios. TPL can argue that those past values are representative, not anything going forward, which might be under duress as a result of the litigation and/or USPTO involvement. Not to mention the fact that TPL may no longer be in a position to comingle the licenses with MMP. Hence these other portfolios need to stand on their own.

And how better to do that? And what better timing? Best to put as much pressure on those companies to settle now/soon. If TPL holds off litigation, Leckrone risks court ordered adjustments to prior sales as a result of litigation losses elsewhere to reflect true value of those portfolios in relation to MMP.

If you go to Moore's compalint you will see statements that lead one to believe that none or these portfolio purchases were straight purchases. Leckrone still had certain commitments to the sellers. Both Core Flash and Fast Logic are specifically mentioned by Moore in the complaint as TPL reporting more expenses than revenue, hence nothing further owed to Sellers. If indeed that was the case, the value of these licenses not even equal to the cost of providing it, such would lead to a conclusion of NOT VERY VALUABLE. Which is contrary to what he needs to claim elsewhere.

Hopefully TPL's actions represent the liklihood that he needs to get what he can for these other portfolios before the true value of MMP emerges through the various other litigations, which would substantially reduce his chances of obtaining any profitable Core Flash or Fast Logic settlements in court.

All IMO, Opty