I bought recently on the bet that it'll go to a buck! They have won licenses from AMD & from INTC & now from HPQ ( I believe ). They are flooded with $$$ & are trying to win more licenses. They are being sued by practically every Japanese Electronics firm so that the Japanese don't have to acknowledge these patents owned by PTSC.OB.
I bet the Japanese all settle with PTSC.OB & will pay $$$$$$$ to PTSC.OB. The hype alone, as these settlements arrive should drive this stock from its present 15 cents to about a buck, I believe.
good trading to all!
willey
Good pick!
Volume coming back
Got in this morning. ;D
PTSC moving nicely the last couple days.
PTSC info:
http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk&ipage=3938520
Sold 1/3 @ .244 (wanted .25)
Hope we don't see a gap in the morning, just a steady rise on increasing volume
Hi Folks,
PTSC.OB is half way to the buck that I expect we'll see
That'll make it an 8 bagger for me...
good trading to all
willey
i am with u 8) ;D
I'm long from 21.9 with an extra position added at 24.4. I'd be happy with a 4-bagger (~88 cents). I've never had a 4-bagger. I'm hoping we see a third white candle tomorrow to complete the 3 white soldiers formation.
Well, I just sold at .95-What a run!
David Randoiph totally missed PTSC.ob ;)
Should have been a great ride on pennies on fire porfolio ;)
looks nice again IMO >:D
Applaud Willy - I'm gonna have to read this fourm more often
time for reentry ???
Move again to $1.
Fujitsu Purchases License--Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
http://www.alliacense.com/press/20060301.html
Fujitsu Purchases License to Intellectual Property Protected by Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
Fujitsu joins expanding roster of global giants, including Hewlett-Packard and Casio Computer, to secure licensing rights to ubiquitous MMP Portfolio technologies
CUPERTINO, Calif. - March 1, 2006 - Alliacense today announced that Fujitsu Limited has purchased a license to the intellectual property protected by the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio. Fujitsu joins an expanding roster of global system manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard and Casio Computer, who have become MMP Portfolio licensees. Specific terms of the license were not disclosed.
According to Mac Leckrone, Alliacense president, the spectrum of system-level digital products exploiting MMP design techniques is very extensive. He noted that products ranging from televisions, digital cameras and portable music players to servers, medical equipment, and even automotive electronics systems are all designed with multiple semiconductor devices that use MMP Portfolio technologies.
"Our Licensing Program rewards first movers in their industry sectors with substantial discounts," said Leckrone "By design, our licensing structure enables nimble and forward-thinking system manufacturers to disadvantage their competitors." He confirmed that Alliacense has contacted hundreds of system manufacturers around the globe, and that competition for early-round licensing berths in key market sectors has become intense.
"Once digital hardware vendors recognize their broad reliance on the intellectual property protected by the MMP Portfolio, they appreciate the critical need to secure continued access to the fundamental MMP technologies," said Leckrone "System-level coverage is essential to maintaining product design freedom and avoiding supply-chain disruptions." He noted that Alliacense also offers simple, royalty-free licenses to all semiconductor sector operations, worldwide.
About The MMP™ Portfolio
Named after legendary inventor Charles "Chuck" Moore, the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio encompasses seven US patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. Protected through year of 2015, these patents protect techniques used in designing microprocessors, microcontrollers, Digital Signal Processor (DSPs), embedded processors and System-on-Chip (SoC) implementations.
In light of the early validation of MMP Portfolio by marquee chip-makers Intel and AMD in 2005, MMP licensing efforts are now focused on global system manufacturers.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of intellectual property licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, experienced business development and project management executives, and technology experts, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL?s intellectual property portfolios. The TPL Group is an intellectual property development and management firm founded in 1989. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.
Alliacense, Moore Microprocessor Patent, and MMP are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
I'm back in again at 1.005. My target is 1.25 - 1.50.
also in again @ 1.00$ >:D
offical news now:
Patriot Scientific Announces Breakthrough Patent Licensing Agreement with Fujitsu
Thursday March 2, 9:02 am ET
Fujitsu Joins Global Giants HP, Casio, Intel and AMD in Recognizing Need to License MMP(TM) Core Microprocessor Technologies
SAN DIEGO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 2, 2006--Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC.OB - News) today announced that Fujitsu Limited has become the latest global system manufacturer to purchase a license to use intellectual property protected by the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio. Patriot and The TPL Group are co-owners of the MMP Portfolio, which is being exclusively managed by Alliacense, a TPL Group enterprise. This license represents a settlement of patent disputes between Fujitsu and the owners of the MMP Portfolio.
In striking this licensing agreement, Fujitsu joins Casio, Hewlett-Packard, AMD and Intel in licensing Patriot's core patents impacting virtually every microprocessor manufactured since 1994. Casio struck its licensing deal last month, HP signed a licensing agreement in January, and both AMD and Intel negotiated licenses in 2005. Terms of the Fujitsu license were not disclosed.
Fujitsu had been one of four major Japanese electronics manufacturers against whom broad-based patent infringement claims had been filed last October by The TPL Group in the Federal District Court of East Texas on behalf of the MMP Portfolio. Today's announcement further substantiates the need for modern system manufacturers to secure MMP Portfolio licenses to cover the entire spectrum of their digital product lines.
"This major licensing agreement -- the third in just over a month -- marks yet another confirmation of the significance of the patents we jointly own." said Patriot's Chairman and CEO David Pohl. "We are pleased that this decision by Fujitsu represents yet another notable step in our ongoing effort to realize the monetary value of our portfolio for the benefit of our Company and ultimately our shareholders."
"The Fujitsu, Intel, AMD, HP and Casio licensing agreements set a strong precedent for more than 150 other high tech manufacturers that were notified in 2004 that they were infringing upon our patents and were invited to obtain appropriate licenses," Pohl noted.
"Our Licensing Program rewards first movers in their industry sectors with substantial discounts," said Mac Leckrone, President of Alliacense. "By design, our licensing structure enables nimble and forward-thinking system manufacturers to disadvantage their competitors." He confirmed that Alliacense has contacted hundreds of system manufacturers around the globe, and that competition for early-round licensing berths in key market sectors has become intense.
According to Leckrone, whose firm exclusively markets the MMP Patent Portfolio on behalf of Patriot Scientific, the broad range of system-level digital products exploiting MMP Portfolio design techniques is extensive. In addition to computers and related hardware, consumer electronic products ranging from televisions, digital cameras and portable music players, high-tech medical equipment, office automation products, aerospace and even automotive electronics systems are all designed with multiple semiconductor devices that use MMP Portfolio technologies.
"Once digital hardware vendors recognize their broad reliance on the intellectual property protected by the MMP Portfolio, they appreciate the critical need to secure continued access to the fundamental MMP technologies," Leckrone noted. "System-level coverage is essential to maintaining product design freedom and avoiding supply-chain disruptions."
Patriot's Dramatic Turn-Around Continues
"This strategically significant licensing agreement with Fujitsu further validates our confidence in the superb Alliacense team of licensing professionals. The financial benefits we have realized as a result of their Olympic-quality representation have made a major contribution to the fiscal strengthening of Patriot Scientific," said Pohl.
Patriot Scientific's market cap reached a level of $364.14 million as of the close of trading on March 1, 2006 -- having soared upward from $25 million in just over a month.
Last month, Patriot Scientific announced it would retire all outstanding debentures -- along with the signing of an agreement giving it the option to buy back what could amount to up to approximately 20 percent of the Company's total outstanding stock warrants. Additionally -- in an action which is virtually unprecedented among microcap stocks -- Patriot announced that it would pay a cash dividend of $.02 per share to shareholders and qualified warrant holders of record as of February 24, 2006. This payment will be issued on March 22, 2006.
Until mid-2005, Patriot had never before shown a quarterly profit, and had never before realized significant revenue from its seminal microprocessor innovations. However, in the past year, the Company's jointly owned patent portfolio has been successfully licensed - through its marketing alliance with The TPL Group's Alliacense division - to Intel, HP and AMD. These first licensing agreements have generated disbursements to Patriot of more than $25 million. Revenues from the recent Casio and Fujitsu licenses have not yet been disclosed.
After opening high in the market, it is sliding downwards. Will it fill the gap or something else? Any TA appreciated. Also, the bid/ask orders have decreased considerably to 500. Is it share price affect or people interested in selling/buying low amount of shares?
I am out now - sold at $1.45. Could go either way IMO. A little disappointed because this morning when it was in the mid-1.50's with a high of 1.62 I thought we might see $2 tomorrow. Wishful thinking! Oh well I can't complain about a 45% gain from my purchase yesterday morning. GLTA!
still holding again 55% profit ;D
http://www.americanmicrocapinstitute.com/ptsc/
and updated company profile:
http://www.hawkassociates.com/patriot/profile.pdf
feedback is appreciated, any price target or support from TA perspective?
thanks
Oliver
up again 20% >:D >:D >:D
Closed at 1.96... ::)
reasonfor the stock price increase:
Patriot Scientific Announces Breakthrough Patent Licensing Agreement with Fujitsu; Fujitsu Joins Global Giants HP, Casio, Intel and AMD in Recognizing Need to License MMP(TM) Core Microprocessor Technologies
Thursday , March 02, 2006 09:02 ET
SAN DIEGO, Calif., Mar 02, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC.OB) today announced that Fujitsu Limited has become the latest global system manufacturer to purchase a license to use intellectual property protected by the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio. Patriot and The TPL Group are co-owners of the MMP Portfolio, which is being exclusively managed by Alliacense, a TPL Group enterprise. This license represents a settlement of patent disputes between Fujitsu and the owners of the MMP Portfolio.
In striking this licensing agreement, Fujitsu joins Casio, Hewlett-Packard, AMD and Intel in licensing Patriot's core patents impacting virtually every microprocessor manufactured since 1994. Casio struck its licensing deal last month, HP signed a licensing agreement in January, and both AMD and Intel negotiated licenses in 2005. Terms of the Fujitsu license were not disclosed.
Fujitsu had been one of four major Japanese electronics manufacturers against whom broad-based patent infringement claims had been filed last October by The TPL Group in the Federal District Court of East Texas on behalf of the MMP Portfolio. Today's announcement further substantiates the need for modern system manufacturers to secure MMP Portfolio licenses to cover the entire spectrum of their digital product lines.
"This major licensing agreement -- the third in just over a month -- marks yet another confirmation of the significance of the patents we jointly own." said Patriot's Chairman and CEO David Pohl. "We are pleased that this decision by Fujitsu represents yet another notable step in our ongoing effort to realize the monetary value of our portfolio for the benefit of our Company and ultimately our shareholders."
"The Fujitsu, Intel, AMD, HP and Casio licensing agreements set a strong precedent for more than 150 other high tech manufacturers that were notified in 2004 that they were infringing upon our patents and were invited to obtain appropriate licenses," Pohl noted.
"Our Licensing Program rewards first movers in their industry sectors with substantial discounts," said Mac Leckrone, President of Alliacense. "By design, our licensing structure enables nimble and forward-thinking system manufacturers to disadvantage their competitors." He confirmed that Alliacense has contacted hundreds of system manufacturers around the globe, and that competition for early-round licensing berths in key market sectors has become intense.
According to Leckrone, whose firm exclusively markets the MMP Patent Portfolio on behalf of Patriot Scientific, the broad range of system-level digital products exploiting MMP Portfolio design techniques is extensive. In addition to computers and related hardware, consumer electronic products ranging from televisions, digital cameras and portable music players, high-tech medical equipment, office automation products, aerospace and even automotive electronics systems are all designed with multiple semiconductor devices that use MMP Portfolio technologies.
"Once digital hardware vendors recognize their broad reliance on the intellectual property protected by the MMP Portfolio, they appreciate the critical need to secure continued access to the fundamental MMP technologies," Leckrone noted. "System-level coverage is essential to maintaining product design freedom and avoiding supply-chain disruptions."
Patriot's Dramatic Turn-Around Continues
"This strategically significant licensing agreement with Fujitsu further validates our confidence in the superb Alliacense team of licensing professionals. The financial benefits we have realized as a result of their Olympic-quality representation have made a major contribution to the fiscal strengthening of Patriot Scientific," said Pohl.
Patriot Scientific's market cap reached a level of $364.14 million as of the close of trading on March 1, 2006 -- having soared upward from $25 million in just over a month.
Last month, Patriot Scientific announced it would retire all outstanding debentures -- along with the signing of an agreement giving it the option to buy back what could amount to up to approximately 20 percent of the Company's total outstanding stock warrants. Additionally -- in an action which is virtually unprecedented among microcap stocks -- Patriot announced that it would pay a cash dividend of $.02 per share to shareholders and qualified warrant holders of record as of February 24, 2006. This payment will be issued on March 22, 2006.
Until mid-2005, Patriot had never before shown a quarterly profit, and had never before realized significant revenue from its seminal microprocessor innovations. However, in the past year, the Company's jointly owned patent portfolio has been successfully licensed - through its marketing alliance with The TPL Group's Alliacense division - to Intel, HP and AMD. These first licensing agreements have generated disbursements to Patriot of more than $25 million. Revenues from the recent Casio and Fujitsu licenses have not yet been disclosed.
sold @ 1.78$
unbelievable ;D
another 9%
Performance, performance, performance.... ;) :D ;D ;D
more room to grow, more to come for this rocket ... moving averages still close to each other when they spread that's where you look for selling point ;)
I read the following on some trader blog ( not a message board).
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/site/blog/display_blog.cfm?bid=DFF4A709-624C-467D-AEE6711BFC36A15D&blogid=55
You may have noticed that MODAR has been all over Patriot Scientific Corp PTSC since the beginning of the year and as a consequence have racked up some impressive cumulative gains in this issue, potentially rendering it our stock of the year for now. What actually drew us to this issue was Hawk Associates www.hawkassociates.com as we were originally drawn to them by the number of issues they represent, consistently showing up on our Momentum Radar that is MODAR, but in particular because of the stunning volumes we have seen become evident over time in a number of their profiled companies. Unfortunately we missed the very lowest entry point on PTSC as it sneaked higher in a rather stealthy fashion, before it suddenly leapt higher on staggering volumes. Most of this past week and in particular yesterday, the money inflows have been almost unprecedented for a stock of this nature and price range for an OTC BB Company which yesterday had an astonishingly high Dollar $Volume of 47,770.159 on a stunning 10,648 trades reaching a very big market cap of $426.61. There's something pretty big going on at PTSC that's not unlike our call on AMPEX Corp 15 months ago, which soared by more than 900% in one of our best recommendations of 2004. We are going to elaborate more on PTSC this weekend which we think could go to $5 plus...
One more posted on net.. People are looking into the story of these patents. >:D
PTSC - Salon Media Group write up, March 7, 2006...
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/03/06/patriot/print.html
The heart of patent litigation darkness -- Sh-boom, sh-boom, computer industry goes ka-boom.
Andrew Leonard
Mar. 07, 2006 | An unseemly piece of gloating arrived in How the World Works' mailbox today, from an outfit called Patriot Scientific Corp. The e-mail started off by citing the $612 million settlement agreed to last Friday between RIM, the makers of the BlackBerry communications device, and NTP, a small software company that had sued RIM for patent infringement.
But that's nothing compared to what Patriot was about to extract from the entire world's computer industry, crowed the e-mail. Patriot "co-owns and markets core microprocessor architecture technology patents which affects every computer manufactured since 1994 and semiconductors which run faster than 120 MHz.
"The $612 million settlement last week will seem small compared to more than 150 computer/semiconductor manufacturers and consumer electronics companies worldwide now being sued or put on notice for industry wide patent infringement that is validated by recent licensing or court settlements by Intel, AMD, HP, Casio and last week Fujitsu."
Ah, the sweet smell of patent litigation in the morning. Does anything make one prouder to be an American? There are few things that How the World Works enjoys more than highlighting the good old-fashioned ingenuity and old school know-how involved with a sweeping patent infringment lawsuit, so we decided to look into the story and see what was really going on. What we found, in just a couple of eye-opening hours, was a twisty maze of patent lawsuits that tells you more than you probably wanted to know about the cutting edge of American high-tech capitalism.
The story dates back to the late 1980s, when two Silicon Valley engineers, Russell Fish III, of Mountain View, and "Chuck" Moore, of Woodside, applied for a sequence of patents to a set of related semiconductor designs that they dubbed the "Sh-Boom" microprocessor. But as is so often the case, Moore (who was already famous for writing the bulk of the Forth computer programming language) and Fish failed to turn their processor into a commercially viable product.
In 1991 Fish sold his interest in the patents to a venture capitalist named Helmut Falk. Falk's company, Nanotronics, spent a few million unsuccessfully trying to commercialize the technology, and then sold out to San Diego company Patriot Scientific in 1994.
Patriot Scientific was excited because one of the patents at issue appeared to lay claim to technology that would enable any microprocessor to operate at speeds faster than 120 megaherz. (Your typical Pentium or AMD chip now runs at least 10 or 20 times as fast as that.) The intellectual property represented by the patents, according to one observer, was "a patent litigator's dream." In 2003-04 Patriot started suing companies left and right, receiving a special assist from a licensing deal agreed to by Silicon Valley's No. 2 chipmaker, AMD, which may have been looking to open up a flank attack on Intel. Intel promptly responded by preemptively suing Patriot, which immediately countersued Intel.
So far, so good -- typical Valley shenanigans. But here comes the twist: You see, both Moore and Fish had been assigned ownership of the original patents, and Moore had not sold his interest to Nanotronics/Patriot. He had turned to another company, the aptly named Technology Properties Limited, and assigned his interest to them. Intel promptly agreed to license the disputed technology from TPL, driving Patriot into paroxysms of suspicion.
Next step: TPL and Patriot sue each other. Patriot tries to argue that Fish really was the one who came up with the key processor-speed patent, but by mid-2005 a San Diego judge doesn't seem to be buying the theory.
In short order, Patriot's CEO is asked to resign by its board, and the company cuts a deal with TPL, agreeing to split revenue from all future patent litigation, but giving TPL sole authority to manage the intellectual property. Now, having joined together, and with both Intel and AMD already having safely bought licenses, the consolidated patent holders are free to turn their attention to suing everybody and anybody in the world who integrates a microprocessor that goes past a certain speed into their products. And in the last month, after a few hardware companies agreed to buy licenses to the technology, Patriot's market capitalization surged from around $25 million to $600 million.
Patriot Scientific doesn't appear to ever have produced much of anything, besides a revolving door of CEOs and a generally unsuccessful record of litigation. But the company is mighty proud now to be holding the rest of the industy at gunpoint. Meanwhile, rather than spend millions in litigation, Casio, HP, and Fujitsu are buying peace of mind.
There's something about this business plan that reminds us more of "The Sopranos" than the kind of entrepreneurial innovation American technology start-ups are supposed to be famous for. Who knows what might have happened if all the money spent on lawyers was poured into research and development of new chip designs? But hey, a buck is a buck, right? Sh-boom. Sh-boom.
-- Andrew Leonard
Salon Media Group, Inc
101 Spear Street, Suite 203
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone 415 645-9200
Fax 415 645-9204
Copyright ©2006 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON is a trademark and a registered trademark of Salon Media Group Inc.
hey dhiraj19 - I saw that article this morning too and posted it at G's Place. I believe the Patent Office will eventually overturn PTSC's patents. The technology is too ubiquitous for one company to claim exclusive ownership of it.
I think we saw the top today.
I made good money on this stock. :)
I am looking in the stock more from technology perspective fight because I am a techie and innovator myself. Patents have been granted and endorsed by Intel and AMD. So x86 market has been influenced there. Its unfortunate for the patent innovator that his patents are owned by public trading company and hence investors, which make his wealth go up and down. If there are more press releases about some other system manufacturers coming, their endorsement gives ammunition to PTSC to extract money out of other manufacturers. When will money come, how much will come and why will it come is crux of stock price? If another PR happens tomorrow we'll see this go through to the top of today otherwise it'll slide.
Elite and you all know technically more about stock movements, so I trade shares rather than fall in love with them.
But technology story is intact. One of things which happened last year was TPL and PTSC coming together to share royalty, so that take as much as possible rather fighting with each other and loosing valuable time of licencing.
They got the endorsements from AMD and Intel for cheap. AMD also has invested in the company during settlement. They must have seen something which is worth investing.
Tell me any good entry points as it is down today to 1.85 now and was at 1.75 some time ago.
- Dhiraj
It has fallen more around 1.40 now... Is it good time to buy again to make some money on it after steep fall?
- Dhiraj
up again:
Patriot Scientific Corporation Announces Second Cash Stock Dividend in Less Than a Month; Annual Meeting and New Offices Also Announced
Thursday , March 09, 2006 09:19 ET
SAN DIEGO, Mar 09, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC.OB) today announced that it will issue yet another cash dividend for shareholders and qualified warrant holders of record as of March 31, 2006. This dramatic announcement follows closely on the heels of last month's announcement of the Company's first dividend payable on March 22, 2006. Patriot's earlier dividend was $0.02 per share - the new dividend is planned to be $0.04 per share.
The Company has been advised that it will likely receive the distribution of its share of the proceeds from recently announced patent portfolio license transactions by the end of March. Those transactions, announced within the past month, involved the Company's jointly owned Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio having been successfully licensed - through its marketing alliance with The TPL Group's Alliacense division - to Casio Computer Co. Ltd. and Fujitsu Limited.
The Company expects to pay the dividend in late April, with the exact date to be determined and announced. Final information as to the number of shareholders and outstanding shares will be provided by the Company's transfer agent as of the record date, but based upon current information and estimates the Company will set aside funds of approximately $15 million for payment of the dividend when distribution of its share of licensing proceeds is received.
"I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors in announcing this planned dividend, which will be double the amount of the previously declared dividend," said Patriot Scientific's Chairman and CEO, David H. Pohl. "The timing and amount of the payment to dividend recipients is subject, of course, to the Company actually receiving our expected share of the proceeds from the licensing transactions," Pohl continued.
"This second dividend announcement in less than a month - something extremely rare in the world of microcap stocks - is yet a further important step toward evidencing the faith and belief of the Board of Directors and management of Patriot Scientific in the Company's current financial strength and future potential," said Pohl. "We are pleased to be able to continue rewarding loyal shareholders with this additional, and even more significant dividend." The Company strongly believes that more licensing transactions and related revenues are likely, although none are assured. As in the instance of announcing this increased dividend, Patriot Scientific's Board of Directors will continue to consider and decide whether to take such dividend payment actions in the future, based on future revenues and the financial condition of the Company, as well as market conditions and other factors.
Annual Meeting
The Company has scheduled the corporation's Annual Meeting for April 28, 2006 to be held in Carlsbad California. The site and time of the annual meeting will be announced at a later date. Patriot Scientific will mail a proxy statement to shareholders near the end of March indicating proposals upon which shareholders will be asked to vote.
New Offices
Patriot Scientific also announced it has relocated its offices to Carlsbad, California at 6183 Paseo Del Norte, Suite 180, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
I am in @ 1.68 again with the last proceeds. Still can't believe the company gave another dividend?
- Dhiraj
Answer to Lucas and Nmbr's question on elite's thread about dividend calculation.
I would like to say that company is not giving dividend based on its stock price rather than the settlement amount. Share price is in momentum and speculation of more settlements and hence in forward move rather than cash in hand.
Big companies also give same amount of dividends ( in cents) even when there share price moves upwards ( example: VLO).
I think both of them are independent of each other. Also, it'll be interesting to extrapolate how much settlement in cash they got. for 2 cents they had 24 million cash , for 4 cents my conservative estimate is 48 million. I wish it to be more than this. This month's end they'll announce the settlements. Licencing will important to see ongoing revenue generation.
I'll delete my reply because I dont want to spoil Elite's thread. ( He is picky about it and I respect it to). Same response posted on member's corner.
PTSC is in partnership with TPL Enterprises. The lawsuits are handled by TPL and PTSC gets 50% of the settlement minus any expenses. According to their last annual report, PTSC only had 7 employees - 1 CEO, 1 CFO, 3 admins, 2 research technicians and 1 sales person. They can afford to give out a dividend since they don't have many expenses.
There is wide anticipation that 1 of the remaining 3 Japanese companies may have settled, if not all of them. This may be another reason why the second dividend was announced. We should hopefully have more news by Tuesday since there is a court date set for 3/14.
Tuesday 03/14/2006
09:30 AM (r)C05-04838, C05-04844, C05-04845, C05-04847
TOSHIBA, AMERICA, INC., et al. v. PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP., et al.
Pla: Harold McElhinny ( )
Def: Roger Cook ( ), Floyd Saunders ( )
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer
-----------
Hey Cjm,
Thanks for your post about court date. I think the dividend was given for last two settlements Casio/Fujistu.
I dont think they have included Toshiba in here. Shouldnt be :-\
Any thoughts about recurring licencing money they'll get?
- Dhiraj
Hi Dhiraj,
So far there have been no announcements on the recurring licenses. I have been checking for the 8-K report, but they don't have to file it if the deal is not yet material. They could be holding off on the actual filing until more settlements are in place. Most likely there won't be a 8-K report and the details will be revealed in their quarterly earnings report.
We should get more details during the conference call on April 28th. Toshiba deal is mere speculation at this point, but I am hoping for an announcement by Tuesday.
CJM
Talked to the company IR:
They are aware of Berlin Stock Exchange and cannot do anything about delisting there.
No comments or speculation or consideration about going to more regulated exchange.
Also read the following analysis, so posting:
System manufactures Hewlett Packard, Casio and Fujitsu along with chip manufactures Intel and AMD*, have all recognized and voluntarily licensed PTSC's jointly owned MMP Portfolio of microprocessor design patents; for what I estimate to date, to be more than $80M.
PTSC has now elected to pay approx. $22M in direct cash dividends from their share of these licensing distributions with the announcement of the latest .04 cents per share dividend, coming just yesterday for shareholders of record on March 31, 2006. This $80M came from just five companies, who received "deep discounts" for being among the first in their sectors to sign. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out what lies ahead with more than 150 additional companies on notice of which dozens are actively seeking licensing arrangements.
Approx. $50M of the MMP Portfolio revenues has come in just the last six weeks.
IMO: Each corresponding licensing contract will be made at an accelerated rate above the last with each exponentially increasing in value. However, to keep projections grounded lets just say the frequency and value of future contracts remain the same. $50M in 6 weeks from 3 companies $50M / 6 = $8.33M per week. $8.33M X 52 = $433M in annual revenue going forward. $433M / 2 (PTSC's share) = $216M from approx 26 companies, conservatively speaking. That would amount to one company signing every two weeks. Now should PTSC elect to distribute just half of these revenues as dividends; it would amount to more than .57 cents per share. Again, conservatively speaking on many levels. With NO debt and $216M in revenue, how could one interpret PTSC's value going forward.?
In comparison to some of the companies in the lucrative business of IP licensing; RAMBUS INC (NasdaqNM:RMBS) has had $157M in revenue for the trailing twelve months while carrying $160M in debt., yet RMBS market cap tops $3.16B, more than six times that of PTSC who has no debt. I believe at some point as more contracts roll in and the consequent revenue is recognized; PTSC's M/C will rival and surpass that of RMBS, even if PTSC realized just half of the above projections along with the recent contracts, (that would be approx. one contract a month).
To quantify in terms of price per share, $3.16B / 304M shares outstanding for PTSC = $10.40 PPS and up. Seeing is believing. Contracts mean revenues, and big revenues mean solid fundamentals creating an enormously undervalued property and colossal opportunity.
OK, so that is just one company.
Do you have any others?
I'm glad you asked.
How about ARM HLDGS ADS (NasdaqNM:ARMHY) although their revenues are $403M ttm., they are not exclusive to IP licensing so their profit margin is much lower. However, this company is very healthy with $279M in cash, no dept. and unlike RMBS who cannot afford to pay a dividend, has a forward annual dividend rate of .04 cents. (PTSC has annouced .06 cents in dividends in just the last month) ARMHY has a considerably higher amount of shares outstanding (477M O/S) than PTSC (304M O/S) So, again in comparison to PTSC in quantifying in terms of PPS. ARMHY M/C is $3.29B divided by PTSC O/S of 304M = $10.82 PPS. This, of course is all relative and contingent upon PTSC securing licensing contracts. Note: All this number crunching has been calculated without the influence of ongoing royalties. Incidentally, if RMBS and ARMHY have not already been notified of infringement of the MMP Portfolio, then they most certainly will be on the next list of 150 companies to be notified. I'm not saying that PTSC should be worth $10.00+ right now. What I am saying is that it could be in very short order and will be in due time. Or on the other hand they could license half the 150 notified companies inside of two or three months and all figures are out the window. In which case you are quite welcome to wear out a truck load of #2 pencils trying to figure out what value PTSC is then. Just my .o2 cents, or should I say .o6... cents.
About The MMP
patent portfolio, marketed as the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio, contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by publicly held Patriot Scientific Corporation and the privately held TPL Group. The portfolio encompasses seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. Protected through year 2015, these patents protect techniques used in designing microprocessors, microcontrollers, Digital Signal Processor (DSPs), embedded processors and System-on-Chip (SoC) implementation.
About TPL
Founded in 1988, Silicon Valley based TPL Group has a solid track record in delivering a complete suite of intellectual property management services. In addition to optimizing IP Portfolio value and protecting assets from infringement, the company is also well versed in converting portfolio value into a maximum cash return for its owner(s).
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of intellectual property licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, experienced business development and project management executives, and technology experts, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL's intellectual property portfolios.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC.OB - News) has emerged as an effective and dynamic intellectual property licensing Company, developing and marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies. The Company's jointly owned portfolio of proprietary designs encompasses fundamental microprocessor technology, as well as pending patents designed to protect Patriot's proprietary technology.
Global sales of end products deploying chips using technologies protected by the jointly owned patents are estimated to be nearly $260 billion annually. Products ranging from televisions, digital cameras and portable music players to servers, medical equipment, and even automotive electronics systems -- are all designed with multiple semiconductor devices that use MMP Portfolio technologies. In light of the early validation of MMP Portfolio by marquee chip-makers Intel and AMD in 2005, MMP licensing efforts are now focused on global system manufacturers.
"The Fujitsu, Intel, AMD, HP and Casio licensing agreements set a strong precedent for more than 150 other high tech manufacturers that were notified in 2004 that they were infringing upon our patents and were invited to obtain appropriate licenses," -- David H. Pohl, Patriot Scientific's Chairman and CEO.
"The intellectual property represented by the MMP Portfolio, and protected around the world, encompasses building blocks for virtually all digital products being designed and shipped today," said Mac Leckrone, Alliacense president. "The depth and breadth of digital products exploiting MMP Portfolio design techniques is remarkable. We routinely find these techniques used in devices ranging from simple TV remote controls to sophisticated medical diagnostic equipment - from portable media players to complex internet 'backbone' hardware. Today's automobiles have dozens of such devices."
Leckrone noted that once digital hardware vendors recognize their broad reliance on the intellectual property protected by the MMP Portfolio, they appreciate the critical need to secure continued access to the fundamental MMP technologies. "System-level coverage is essential to maintaining product design freedom and avoiding supply-chain disruptions," he explained. Alliacense also offers simple, royalty-free licenses to all semiconductor sector operations, worldwide.
Leckrone confirmed that the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program rewards first movers in their industry sectors with substantial discounts. "By design, our licensing structure enables nimble and forward-thinking system manufacturers to disadvantage their competitors."
According to Leckrone, the purchase of MMP System Licenses by global system manufacturers such as HP and Casio has increased MMP licensing momentum. He reports that of the hundreds of companies Alliacense has contacted worldwide, dozens have begun to seek licensing arrangements. "The competition for early-round berths in many key market sectors is becoming intense."
* [ AMD (Advanced Micro Devises) are not only licensees, they also own restricted PTSC stock ]
PTSC.OB might be going green in the afternoon.
RealDeals,
What made u post that statement? Any insider info or something in charts you have seen.
Comments please
There were two more posts after my post ( one by nmbrbllr and other by stocky.. Not there). ???
Thanks,
Dhiraj
I just looked at the charts. PTSC is up .03 now !! ;D ;D
Hi
I just added more shares at 1.30 and now it is at 1.46 up .11 WoW!
GTLA
Lalita
Realdeals gotta to be applauded. But how did you make that analysis. after 11 am today there was anemic trading. PTSC traded 11 million shares in first 3 hrs and then for next 1.5 hrs it was dead.. Trickle buying but there could have been break down too...
Interested in knowing your thoughts about the call from charts. ???
Lalitha,
I have seen, whenever you buy 8) there is large possibility of stock doubling atleast... it'll be awesome if that happens. >:D
- Dhiraj
Dhiraj,
I wish that were true. I actually bought this at 1.70 and watched it go down painfully and now it looks poised to go up. So I added more.
I am all for this stock to double!
Lalitha
i am in @1.68 so waiting it come back. :P . Votality and explosive news is the feeder for this stock...
- Dhiraj
Volume has dried up again and price is stuck between 1.39 - 1.44. Any comments what can happen next? Will it go up or down based on yesterday style of trading?
Thanks,
Dhiraj
Dhiraj,
To me that the volume has dried up is a good sign. That means no one is selling at these prices. After the big sell off for the past 3 days I think if the stock holds here that is good.
Just my opion. I am going to hold.
Lalitha
closed at yesterdays' close.
Posted on one of the boards. Case with matushita goes in Texas which is PTSC's preference. Why I dont know?
Also, according to IR Hawk Associates, it doesnt make any material difference to company.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
AMERICA (formerly known as MATSUSHITA
ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA)
and MATSUSHITA ELECTRICAL
INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs
v.
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION;
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, INC;
CHARLES H. MOORE, et al.
Defendants.
/
No. C05 4844 MJJ
No. 05-04847 MJJ
No. 05-04845 MJJ
No. 05-04838 MJJ
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
STAY OF PROCEEDING
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Technology Properties Limited, Inc.'s (''TPL'') motion to
dismiss, stay or transfer the present action.1 This motion is opposed by Plaintiffs Panasonic
Corporation of North America (''Panasonic'') and Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. (''MEI'').
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to stay further proceedings in
this action pending the outcome of the action in the United States District Court for Eastern District
of Texas, captioned Technology Properties Limited Inc. v Fujitsu, et al., Case No. 2-05CV-494.
Case 3:05-cv-04844-MJJ Document 43 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2003, Patriot Scientific Corporation ("Patriot") filed suit in the Northern
District of California accusing Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc. (''FMA'') of infringing U.S.
Patent No. 5,809,336 ('''336 patent'') (hereinafter, ''the Oakland action''). Around the same time,
Patriot separately filed suit against four other companies - Matsushita Electric Company of America
(now known as Panasonic), NEC USA, Inc., Sony Corporation of America, and Toshiba America,
Inc. - in three other jurisdictions.
On February 11, 2004, the parties in these actions stipulated to consolidate these cases into
the Oakland action. Pursuant to the stipulation, each separately filed action was voluntarily
dismissed and Patriot filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Oakland action.
At that time, it was not clear who was the rightful owner of the patent portfolio containing
the '336 patent. On February 13, 2004, Patriot filed a separate complaint in the Northern District of
California (Case No. 04-0618 (JF)) against TPL, Daniel E. Leckron, and Charles H. Moore (''the
Moore action'') seeking resolution of the ownership rights of the Moore Microprocessor Patent
(''MMP'') Portfolio. The MMP Portfolio included the '336 patent, as well as United States Patent
Numbers 6,598,148 (the '''148 patent''), and 5,784,584 (the ''584 patent''). Patriot also added TPL as
a defendant in the Oakland action.
On May 19, 2005, Judge Armstrong, who was presiding over the Oakland action, issued an
order inquiring whether the parties wanted to dismiss the Oakland action without prejudice pending
the resolution of the Moore action. Judge Armstrong's order required that, in the event that the
parties decided not to dismiss the Oakland action, the parties ''clearly identify the matters to be heard
by this Court and...provide the Court with a proposed scheduling order that sets forth the earliest
possible dates for discovery cut-off, motion cut-off, pretrial, and trial."
On June 7, 2005, Patriot and TPL settled their dispute and resolved the ownership of the
MMP Portfolio. Pursuant to the settlement, TPL maintained the complete and exclusive right to
license and enforce the MMP patents. In return, Patriot was to receive a share of the net proceeds.
Subsequent to the TPL-Patriot agreement, TPL engaged in settlement discussions with the
defendants in the Oakland action. TPL also sought and obtained a stay of litigation in order to
Case 3:05-cv-04844-MJJ Document 43 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2TPL added some additional defendants to the Texas action.
3
continue settlement discussions. As part of this effort, TPL and the defendants in the Oakland action
made several statements to the court in a Joint Case Management Conference Statement & Report
(''Joint CMC Statement'') dated June 29, 2005. TPL submitted the following:
''In addition, since TPL has only just now been placed in charge
of the infringement litigation, it is not in a particularly good position to
propose 'earliest possible dates for discovery cut-off, motion cut-off,
pretrial and trial.'
If the Computer Company Case has not been settled within 60
days, TPL will file a supplemental and/or amended pleading substituting
itself for Patriot, and propose appropriate dates for discovery cut-off,
motion cut-off, pretrial and trial....
In the same Joint CMC Statement, Panasonic and the other defendants stated:
''TPL has represented that it has just recently been placed in charge of
this infringement litigation and apparently needs time to make decisions
about how to proceed, including whether to seek leave to file a
supplemental and/or amended pleading substituting itself for Patriot
Scientific as the plaintiff.''
TPL later requested that the court again stay the Oakland action. In so doing, TPL
submitted similar statements as those above in a Joint CMC Statement and Report filed on
September 23, 2005. However, the court denied TPL's request and lifted the stay of the Oakland
action case.
On October 24, 2005, TPL filed a complaint for patent infringement in the Eastern District
of Texas (the "Texas action'') against Fujitsu Limited, Panasonic, NEC Corporation, Toshiba
Corporation, and 16 of their United States subsidiaries (collectively, ''the Texas Defendants'').
Among the Texas Defendants were all of the defendants involved in the Oakland action.2 The
complaint in the Texas action alleged infringements of the '336 patent, the '584 patent, and the '148
patent.
On October 24, 2005, the same day that TPL filed in Texas, Patriot dismissed its complaint
in the Oakland action. Subsequently, on November 28, 2005, Panasonic and MEI filed the instant
action (the "Panasonic action'') in the Northern District of California, seeking a declaratory
judgment of non-infringement of the same three patents currently at issue in the Texas action. That
Case 3:05-cv-04844-MJJ Document 43 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
305-4837 MJJ (voluntarily withdrawn), 05-4838 MHP, 05-4845 CW, 05-4847 WHA, and the instant action,05-4844
CRB, filed November 28, 2005.
4Panasonic does not dispute that both suits involve the same parties. Even if Panasonic disputed this contention
since Patriot, Moore, and Leckrone are absent from the Texas suit, all three have consented to be joined to the Texas action.
See Def. Mot. p. 10.
4
same day, the other Oakland defendants filed their own declaratory actions in this district, resulting
in five separate actions filed against TPL on November 28, 2005.3
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
A. ''First to File'' Rule
Where a complaint involving the same parties and same issues has already been filed in a
different federal district, the court in which the second suit is filed may either transfer, stay, or
dismiss the second suit. Alltrade Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991).
The ''first to file'' rule normally serves the purpose of promoting efficiency and should not be
disregarded lightly. Church of Scientology of California v. United States Department of the Army,
611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979). The concern is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid
rulings which may trench upon the authority of other courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of
issues that call for a uniform result. Colorado River Conser. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800,
818-820 (1976). In order to apply the rule, the moving party, usually the defendant, must satisfy
three factors: 1) the chronology of the two actions; 2) the similarity of the two actions; and 3) the
similarity of the issues. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625-626.
Here, the instant action involves the same issues and parties involved in the Texas action. In
both actions, the same parties dispute whether the same three patents have been infringed.4 TPL
initiated the Texas action on October 24, 2005, a full month before Panasonic initiated the instant
action. Absent any compelling exception to the general rule, this Court should grant deference to
the Texas court and allow that court to determine whether to try the case.
A court may determine not to follow the ''first to file'' rule when circumstances indicate bad
faith, anticipatory breach, or forum shopping. Alltrade Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc. 946 F.2d 622,
628 (9th Cir. 1991). The court is permitted an ample degree of discretion in determining whether or
Case 3:05-cv-04844-MJJ Document 43 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52/11/04 MDL Stipulation.
6Panasonic relies on Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Research Ctr. v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 821 F. Supp.
644 (D.Or. 1993), for the proposition that TPL is bound by Patriot's stipulation, enforceable under the doctrine of promissory
estoppel . However, Hutchinson is clearly distinguishable from the present case because the promise in that involved a third
party beneficiary to an agreement. Here, no such third party beneficiary exists, as Defendants were actual parties to their
agreement with Patriot, and were not third party beneficiaries to any explicit agreement between Patriot and TPL.
Accordingly, Panasonic's reliance on Hutchinson is misplaced.
7Case No. C03-5787 (SBA). Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Report, Filed 6/29/05. In this Joint
CMC Statement, TPL states: ''If the Computer Company Case has not been settled within 60 days, TPL will file a
supplemental and/or amended pleading substituting itself for Patriot, and propose appropriate dates for discovery cut-off,
motion cut-off, pretrial and trial.''
5
not to exercise an exception to the general ''first to file'' rule. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (citing
Ketrotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183-84 (1952).
Panasonic asserts that the Court should not follow the general rule because TPL acted in bad
faith by not complying with Patriot's stipulation in the Oakland action. In that agreement, Patriot
promised to prosecute it's patent infringement suit in the Northern District of California against
Panasonic and other entities.5 However, TPL was not a party to the Oakland action when Patriot
agreed to this stipulation. TPL only became a party in the Oakland action after Patriot's stipulation.
Furthermore, when Patriot amended its complaint to incorporate TPL into the Oakland litigation,
TPL was joined as an adverse party. Only subsequent to the amended complaint did Patriot and
TPL reach a settlement which aligned their interests. Since TPL was a separate entity and did not
agree to the terms and conditions of Patriot's sitpulation, TPL is not bound by Patriot's agreement.6
Panasonic next contends that TPL made misrepresentations to the Oakland court, and that
on this basis, the Court should not follow the ''first-to-file'' rule. Panasonic maintains that after the
TPL-Patriot settlement, TPL represented to Judge Armstrong that TPL would continue to litigate
the patent dispute in the Northern District. Panasonic alleges that the Oakland defendants relied on
TPL's representations, and that TPL acted in bad faith when it initiated the Texas action and
permitted Patriot to dismiss the Oakland action. Panasonic urges the Court to hold TPL to its
alleged promise. However, Panasonic overstates the scope of TPL's representations to the Oakland
court. Plaintiff relies on statements which appear as part of a request for a 60-day stay of
proceeding to pursue settlement discussions.7 This statement was not a promise that TPL would
unconditionally continue with the existing case, nor was it a promise that TPL would maintain any
Case 3:05-cv-04844-MJJ Document 43 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8Judge Armstrong's Order, dated 05/19/2005, requests the ''parties provide the Court with a proposed scheduling
order that sets forth the earliest possible dates for discovery cut-off, motion cut-off, pre-trial and trial.'' Additionally, the
sentence immediately before TPL's statement at issue in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Report
(6/29/05) mentions Judge Armstrong's request.
9Case No. C03-5787 (SBA). Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Report, Filed 6/29/05.
6
future patent litigation in the Northern District. Rather, the statement was an acknowledgment of
Judge Armstrong's request for discovery cut-off dates8 and an assurance by TPL that the request
would be addressed after the stay. Furthermore, in the Joint CMC Statement, Panasonic and the
other defendants even recognized that TPL still needed time to determine ''whether to seek leave to
file a supplemental and/or amended pleadings substituting itself for Patriot.'' (emphasis added).9 At
the time, the parties had only recently determined that TPL was the owner of the patents at issue.
TPL, as a separate and independent entity from Patriot, had the right to prosecute its patents
infringement case in the manner and forum of its choosing. There is nothing before the Court to
suggest that TPL should be bound by Patriot's litigation decisions. Accordingly, the Court finds
that TPL did not misrepresent to Judge Armstrong that TPL would continue suit in the Northern
District.
Finally, Panasonic contends that the Court should decline to follow the ''first to file'' rule
because TPL forum shopped its case to the Eastern District of Texas. However, there is evidence
that TPL's decision was not based purely on forum shopping considerations. One of the inventors
of the patents at issue resides in Texas. Moreover, ''unless the balance [of private and public
interest factors] is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be
disturbed.'' Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). Defendant's alleged forum
shopping alone, without more, is not enough to compel the Court to disregard the first-to-file rule.
Plaintiffs have given the Court little reason to dispense with the ''first to file'' rule.
Accordingly, the Court will follow the rule and stay this action pending the outcome of the Texas
action.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:05-cv-04844-MJJ Document 43 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10Alternatively, Defendant has argued that the Court should decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' declaratory action. Since Defendant essentially makes the same argument as to both grounds, and the Court is
already granting a stay in this action, the Court declines to address the issue of the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
7
/ / /
/ / /
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Stay this case
pending resolution of the Texas action.10 This order also stays the following related actions in this
district: 05-4847, 05-4845, 05-4838. The parties are ordered to provide the Court with a status of
the Texas action every six months from the date of this Order, or sooner upon resolution of the
Texas action as to any of the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2006
MARTIN J. JENKINS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More analysis:
Case Studies
The highly regarded law firm of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP are among legal council representing TPL/PTSC in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Roger Cook, a senior patent litigator with Townsend and Townsend, has been instrumental in licensing the "MMP" Portfolio on behalf of TPL/PTSC, to one of the world's pre-eminent microprocessor manufacturers. Cook said, "This portfolio appears to be a patent litigator's dream." http://askmerrill.ml.com/markets_news_story/1,2263,{26676458-55B8-4B0C-970C-9DA26D0D15D2},00.html
And why is Townsend and Townsend so highly regarded? What caliber of Law Firm are we talking about here? They have been on the prevailing side of some of the most epic patent and antitrust cases in recent history.
"One of our recent success stories illustrates how Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP's multipractice team approach leads to unparalleled success. Initially, we were retained to provide patent advice for Intergraph, a manufacturer of highly sophisticated computer work stations. A patent dispute arose with Intel which supplied the microprocessors for Intergraph's computer products. Intel tried to coerce Intergraph by withholding vital technical information.
The Townsend patent attorneys walked across the hall to the Townsend commercial and antitrust litigation attorneys, and questioned the propriety of Intel's retaliatory action, which essentially threatened to shut down Intergraph's business. They worked together to identify a range of legal claims from breach of contract to antitrust violations, and developed a comprehensive litigation strategy.
The Townsend team acted swiftly in filing for an injunction under federal antitrust laws, which was granted by the federal court in Alabama where Intergraph was headquartered. While the injunction was on appeal, the Federal Trade Commission became interested and sought the active cooperation of Intergraph and Townsend to pursue a government antitrust action against Intel to stop this conduct against Intergraph and other computer companies. Intel eventually entered into an antitrust consent decree with the FTC which barred such actions in the future.
Intergraph continued to litigate its patent infringement claims against Intel in federal courts in both Alabama and Texas. At one point the federal judge in Alabama dismissed Intergraph's patent claims because he found that Intel had a license to the patents. Townsend successfully appealed this ruling, which involved important issues of contract law and patent licensing law. Townsend obtained a unanimous decision at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the dismissal, thus reinstating the patent claims. Subsequently, during court-ordered mediation, the parties crafted a creative case resolution settling the Alabama case for $300 million paid by Intel to Intergraph in May 2002.
For the Texas case, the parties agreed to litigate the issue of patent infringement on a different set of patents, but in advance agreed that if Intergraph won the trial, damages would amount to an additional $150 million. After a nine-day trial, the federal judge issued a lengthy written opinion in October 2002 holding that Intergraph had proven both that its patents were valid and that Intel infringed both patents.
Additionally, the innovative settlement provides that if Intel appeals the loss in Texas and loses, Intel must pay Intergraph an additional $100 million. Thus, to date Townsend has assisted Intergraph to obtain a total of $450 million for infringement of its patents, one of the five largest patent infringement settlements of all time."
http://www.townsend.com/case/caseDetails.asp?o=4520 .
Microsoft Class Action
After relentlessly prosecuting this antitrust and unfair competition action against an intransigent Microsoft to within 30 days of trial, Townsend succeeded in negotiating a recovery of $1.1 billion from Microsoft for the benefit of 14 million California businesses and consumers who were overcharged by Microsoft for its products. Furthermore, the bulk of any unclaimed funds will go to the California Department of Education for the purchase of computer products for California's public schools. This settlement represents the largest recovery ever achieved for consumers under California's antitrust and unfair competition laws.
Grid Systems Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc.
Townsend represented plaintiff Tandy Corporation ("Radio Shack") in this patent/antitrust case against Texas Instruments. Tandy alleged that Texas Instruments violated the Sherman Act by (1) obtaining a key patent through fraud on the PTO and (2) using that fraudulently obtained patent to force Tandy to license Texas Instrument's entire portfolio of patents for $50 million. After plaintiffs obtained favorable rulings from the trial judge, the case was settled for a substantial, but confidential, sum. United States District Court, Northern District of California.
http://www.townsend.com/case/default.asp?sec=all
http://news.morningstar.com/QuarterEnd/Q12006BestWorstStocks.html :-X
A Teeny-Weeny update in this puppy is in order...
<<Patriot Scientific Up On Partner's License Deal With Sony
2:47 PM EDT June 2, 2006
By Maxwell Murphy
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shares of microchip patent-holder Patriot Scientific Corp. (PTSC) soared as much as 51% in frenetic Bulletin Board trading Friday after the company's joint-venture partner announced it had signed a licensing deal with Japanese electronics giant Sony Corp. (SNE).
Terms of the deal weren't disclosed, according to a mid-Friday-morning press release issued by The TPL Group, a closely held concern which jointly owns with San Diego's Patriot Scientific what is known as the Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio. Spokesmen for both Patriot and TPL declined to comment further on the size and scope of the deal and a Sony representative couldn't immediately locate officials who could speak about the deal's terms.
For passionate Patriot shareholders, and they are legion, those terms are essential to judging whether over-the-counter Patriot deserves the roughly $500 million market capitalization bestowed upon it by Wall Street.
Patriot and TPL have inked licensing deals with several prominent companies, such as Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ), Casio Computer Co. (6952.TO) and Fujitsu Ltd. (6702.TO), and are pursuing licenses from myriad other users of chips the pair claim violate the Moore patents.
So far, those licenses have yielded about $76 million in one time-only payments, of which Patriot has received about half the operating income that revenue generates and TPL has received the remainder. What has made OTCBB-standout Patriot stock one of the most volatile and heavily traded stocks around are the dividends the company has doled out using a large chunk of the money that flows to its bottom line.
Investors seek to determine how much revenue, through negotiation and litigation, these licenses will yield. Up 27.5% at $1.30 apiece at last glance, on volume of more than 18 million shares, Patriot carries a 4.6% yield with the 6 cents a share in dividends it has already paid this year. However, since licenses and dividends are its only business, it may need many more deals to justify its current price. Over the past year, Patriot's stock careened from under one cent to as high as $2.25 a share before ebbing.
The current licensees have paid on average around $10 million each, with half going to Patriot, but Patriot management has said the first licensees will get better terms than holdouts. The larger the licensing fees for each deal, the fewer deals Patriot and TPL will need to strike in order to justify Patriot's valuation.
In addition to dividends, which Patriot often notes are rare for a Bulletin Board company, it recently said it wants to pursue share repurchases with 10% or more of its licensing income. Although it listed an already hefty 361.8 million shares outstanding as of April 17, figures Patriot has provided for the cost of its dividend suggest Patriot pays its dividends on nearly 415 million shares.
Though there's no immediate confirmation of the size of the Sony licensing payment, investors won't be kept in the dark forever. Even if Patriot doesn't issue a release detailing the Sony deal and discussing what, if any, dividends and buybacks the licensing revenue might finance, it will need to disclose the size of the deal in its quarterly filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Should the information not appear when it files its forthcoming quarterly report for small businesses for its quarter ended in May, it's a safe bet the matter will be discussed in its filings for the quarter ending in August.
-By Maxwell Murphy, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5173;
[email protected] (END) Dow Jones Newswires
06-02-06 1447ET
Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. >>
The stock soared about 35 cents to $1.37 on massive volume (over 23 million shares) Friday, the 2nd of June. Reasonable chance of it climbing towards a double top at just over 2 bucks!
good trading to all...
willey
thanks for the heads-up willey
Sony signed a deal with PTSC and their partner TPL/Alliacense. Thats the reason for the big gains.
http://www.alliacense.com/press/20060602.html
Here are some strong financial reasons to consider buying PTSC.
Day's Range: 1.03 - 1.25
52wk Range: 0.01 - 2.25
Volume: 1,804,826
Avg Vol (3m): 7,179,820
Market Cap: 396.19M
P/E (ttm): 15.00
EPS (ttm): 0.073
Div & Yield: 0.02 (2.60%)
VALUATION MEASURES
Market Cap (intraday): 394.38M
Enterprise Value (2-Jun-06)3: 344.39M
Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 14.93
Forward P/E (fye 31-May-07) 1: N/A
PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): N/A
Price/Sales (ttm): 5.25
Price/Book (mrq): 13.25
Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 4.90
Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)3: 5.352
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Ends: 31-May
Most Recent Quarter (mrq): 28-Feb-06
Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm): 38.23%
Operating Margin (ttm): 91.43%
Management Effectiveness
Return on Assets (ttm): 127.29%
Return on Equity (ttm): 179.92%
Income Statement
Revenue (ttm): 70.31M
Revenue Per Share (ttm): 0.239
Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): 1942.00%
Gross Profit (ttm): 2.98M
EBITDA (ttm): 64.35M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 26.88M
Diluted EPS (ttm): 0.07
Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): 3677.00%
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq): 24.66M
Total Cash Per Share (mrq): 0.068
Total Debt (mrq): 0
Total Debt/Equity (mrq): N/A
Current Ratio (mrq): 5.274
Book Value Per Share (mrq): 0.077
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow (ttm): 31.04M
Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): 18.10M
Technicals
Most Actives
Percentage Gainer
Last Price Quote is:
63.18%above 13-day EMA
46.82%above 50-day EMA
http://www.3stocksonfire.org/trading/index.php?topic=303.90
PTSC moving in anticipation of the 10K which is late. Expected filing on Oct 13 (I think). Anyway, MACD has turned up. If it breaks .98, it should see some pretty strong resistance in the 1.05 range. I'm averaged in at .78. I can't decide if I should sell half before the 10K or wait to see if it is a blockbuster. Got to be some good earnings at some point from all these licensing fees. If it breaks above 1.15-1.20 on big volume, that puts 1.50 in play. I don't see that unless the 10K is huge or some other big news.