The wording you cite suggests that the licensing proceeds are expected to be adequate to cover the funding requirements. The question then is are we settling for pennies with some infringers, in order to get the money needed to push the T3 litigation? I'm not saying that's the wrong strategy, but when a company resists transparency, it typically is not a positive.

Considering the "book-cooking" that allegedly occurred in the past with TPL, throwing another thick quilt over the whole situation doesn't help confidence that PTSC has rectified the situation, IMO. Rather, it suggests the opposite, and that they want to obfuscate what may have occurred.

If we see another $7M quarter for PDS like we did not to long ago, but that PTSC only gets a minute portion of that, I'll remain concerned that PTSC has acquiesced to TPL's threats to shut down the licensing if they didn't settle.