based on the following allegations made in the 1st amended complaint. More importantly did TPL agree to give PTSC more money?

From the 1st amended complaint against TPL. Who are the DOE defendants and how was this handled in the settlement agreement?

Eighth Cause of Action

(Unjust Enrichment-Against DOE Defendants)

54. Patriot incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though set forth in full.

55. Defendant DOES 26-35 are business entities, form unknown, who have received licensing revenue from licenses negotiated by TPL.

56. Defendant DOES 26-35 knew or should have known that some or all revenue derived from licensing to third parties was achieved by virtue of TPL’s simultaneous negotiation of MMP licenses to those third parties and that the revenue derived was improperly diverted away from the consideration properly attributable to the simultaneous MMP license to third parties.

57. As a proximate result of the foregoing, Defendant DOES 26-35 have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be determined at trial and hold such improper licensing revenue as a constructive trustee for the benefit of Patriot.

Ninth Cause of Action

(Injunctive Relief-Against All Defendants)

58. Patriot incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though set forth in full.

59. The ComAg specifies criteria by which TPL may write MMP licenses. The ComAg does not authorize TPL to compromise the consideration received for MMP licenses by weighing license consideration in favor of Fast Logic, Core Flash, Chipscale or other TPL Intellectual property. Except in specified circumstances, which have not been present, the ComAg provides that the MMP license terms require PDS Management Committee Consent.