3SOF

Currently it is negative. There is court date on Tuesday with toshiba. Breaking 2.00 will be heck lot of push but it can with these surprise news headlines. 

Setravis,
Are you still holding it?

- Dhiraj

Guys,
I have a quick question, regarding PTSC trading today morning 10 -12. Looking at my streamer charts in  in multiple accounts( ameritrade and etrade), I dont see anything in them? Has someone else seen behavior like that?
Thanks,
Dhiraj

today's chart:

I will just repeat what I had to say on page 2 of this thread.

Booya...booya..booya..   
I Feel confident about this stock. How can it lose?

Just to summarize, here are the significant deals that are driving the stock price.
Mar 2, 2006 Fujitsu licenses MMP Portfolio
Feb 22, 2006 Casio licenses MMP Portfolio
Feb 14, 2006 Announces dividend of 0.02 to shareholders on record Feb 24, payable March 22
Feb 10, 2006 Restructures/eliminates debt in exchange for equity
Jan 24, 2006 HP licenses MMP Portfolio
Feb 22, 2005 AMD licenses the ShBoom processor design and licenses MMP Portfolio
Dec 8, 2004 PTSC learns of an agreement with Intel dated June 28, 2004? Not sure how they missed that one, but maybe Intel wanted it back dated for some reason. Intel gets rights to MMP for one time $10 million payment.

Ride cowboy ride!

Applaud Setravis, I am 100% in agreement with you on this one. Also add to it the 4 cent dividend. May be EPS on yahoo is not accurate, and hence P/E need to be adjusted accordingly.

I think any good news on more licenses and you will be licking your fingers. However, with such a case in hand there is still some possibility of MM moving out ppl by driving this stock temporarily down.

Go get 'em.

I hear you Stocky. 
Let us not forget to mention one thing, not one detail.
Applaud to you also, rock and roll Stocky !
Good luck with your trades my friend!

date out now:
PTSC: Ups Mthly Cash Dividend; $0.04/Shr; X-Mar 29
Friday , March 10, 2006 15:10 ET

According to the NASDAQ Dividend List, Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC) has declared a $0.04 cash dividend. This cash dividend will ONLY be available to shareholders of record as of March 31, 2006.

  DECL-DATE          X-DATE        REC-DATE        PAY-DATE
-----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
03/10/2006      03/29/2006      03/31/2006             N/A

AMOUNT:    $0.04 cash (USD)
FREQUENCY: MONTHLY (based on history)
CHANGE:    INCREASE in regular dividend

Talked to the company IR ( hawk associates):
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 ]

Tomorrow is a court date of PTSC v. Toshiba.  Hopefully good news will arise and hopefully continue back up.  I got in at $1.85.   

today's chart.. today's low 1.53 meddled between 1.53 and 1.61 with heavy drop in volume ( 7 mil compared to 20 - 25 mil ). Attached chart.

Just a fun comment on wishful thinking: with any two red bars in its ascent , it had atleast one white bar hence breaking bearish engulfing. I hope i didnt jinx it for tomorrow 
- Dhiraj

Applaud dhiraj, I am in agreement with the prospects for PTSC.

For today's trading I jinxed it....  ... Its trading below yesterday's closing price.

- Dhiraj

I think for a TA's perspective, it's fair to say today was a key reversal day, with support found at the uptrending line when you join the lows from the past 1 - 2 months.

Volume was very good, especially towards the last hour when there was unprecedented buying at and above the "ask".

what do you guys think....MelfElf, Setravis, EliteG and other TA experts ??

Thanks. 

here is a chart for the last 1 month...nice bounce off of the 20 EMA seen today (and good support offered by the 20 MA in that range).

i think this is going higher tomorrow and until it tests the recent high.

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------