Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
October 20, 2008 04:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time 
CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Alliacense today announced that Royal Philips Electronics has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL Group to cover its recently acquired business unit, Respironics, a leading player in the respiratory market. Headquartered in the Netherlands, Royal Philips Electronics purchased its initial MMP license in 2007.
"We are proud of the relationship we’ve built with Royal Philips Electronics," said Andre-Pascal Chauvin, VP of Licensing in Alliacense’s European office. "The MMP technology is adding real value to their market success and enabling real growth."
The sweeping scope of applications using MMP design techniques continues to encourage manufacturers of end user products from around the globe to become MMP licensees. Since January 2006, HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, Schneider Electric, NEC Corporation, Funai Electric, SanDisk, Sharp Corporation, Nokia, Bull, LEGO, DMP Electronics, Denso Wave, TEAC, Daewoo Electronics, WMS, Lite-On IT, Alpine, Verigy, Humax, Psion, Tokyo Electron, DIRECTV, Mattel, AMO, Citizen, Gerber Scientific, Emerson Radio, RIM, Onkyo, Hoya, Robert Bosch, Audiovox, Roland and Rockwell Automation, have all purchased MMP Portfolio licenses.
About Royal Philips Electronics
Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands (NYSE: PHG, AEX: PHI) is a global leader in healthcare, lighting and consumer lifestyle, delivering people-centric, innovative products, services and solutions through the brand promise of "sense and simplicity". Headquartered in the Netherlands, Philips employs approximately 123,800 employees in more than 60 countries worldwide. With sales of EUR 27 billion in 2007, the company is a market leader in medical diagnostic imaging and patient monitoring systems, energy efficient lighting solutions, as well as lifestyle solutions for personal wellbeing. News from Philips is located at www.philips.com/newscenter.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development/management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL’s IP portfolios. Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has emerged as a coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of proprietary product technologies as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on those technologies and corresponding IP assets. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.
Alliacense and Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
Contacts
Alliacense
Kelly Williams, +1-408-446-4222
CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE
Die vermutlichen Zahlungen sind aber doch keine Lippenbekenntnisse; d.h., die haben doch eine eigene Rechtsabteilung die die rechtslage prüft (vorab) und vermutlich zu der Erkenntnis kommt, dass bei einer Interessenabwägung eine Zahlung derzeit günstiger wäre, als zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt.
Also werden die die Chancen ,dass die Patente für gültig erklärt werden, bzw. die technische Gültigkeit über 50% einschätzen, so dass Zahlungen geleistet werden.
Das und die Gesamtsituation, denke ich, ist eine größere Chance als viele andere Werte, geld zu verdienen.
Ich glaube, es wäre jetzt nochmal an der Zeit, 2-5K zu investieren....oder wie seht Ihr das
Chance/Risiko Vh. ?
Kodak Enters Into Patent Cross-License Agreement with Nokia
ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:EK) today announced that it entered into a patent license agreement earlier this month with Nokia Corporation that will allow each company access to the other’s intellectual property portfolio.
The license agreement, which provides significant benefits to both companies, is royalty bearing to Kodak. Additional financial terms were not disclosed.
“We are pleased to have reached a mutually beneficial arrangement that advances the interests of Kodak and Nokia and validates the strength of Kodak’s intellectual property portfolio,” said Laura G. Quatela, Chief Intellectual Property Officer, and Vice President, Eastman Kodak Company. “We look forward to continued collaboration with Nokia.”
About Kodak
As the world's foremost imaging innovator, Kodak helps consumers, businesses, and creative professionals unleash the power of pictures and printing to enrich their lives.
To learn more, visit http://www.kodak.com, and our blogs: 1000words.kodak.com, PluggedIn.kodak.com, and GrowYourBiz.kodak.com.
Editor’s Note: Kodak corporate news releases are now offered via RSS feeds. To subscribe, visit www.kodak.com/go/RSS and look for the RSS symbol. In addition, Kodak podcasts are viewable at www.kodak.com/go/podcasts. Our podcasts may be downloaded for viewing on iTunes, Quicktime, or other PC-based media players. Users may also subscribe to Kodak podcasts via the iTunes application if already installed on your computer. From the iTunes store, type “Kodak podcast” in the search field to view all of our podcast offerings.
2008
Contacts
Kodak
David Lanzillo, +1-585-781-5481
david.lanzillo@kodak.com
Da Nokia bekanntlich Lizenznehmer bei PTSC ist, müßte Kodak eigentlich folgen.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE
LIMITED,
Defendants.
HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE
LIMITED,
Defendants.
This disposition is not designated f 1 or publication in the official reports
2“Acer” refers collectively to Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc.
3“HTC” refers collectively to Plaintiffs HTC Corporation and HTC America.
4“Asustek” refers collectively to Plaintiffs Asustek Computer, Inc. and Asus Computer International
5 TPL’s motions are joined by Defendants Patriot Scientific (“Patriot”), Alliacense Limited “Alliacense”), and additionally by Defendant MCM Portfolio (“MCM”) in the Asustek action. For the purposes of this Order, all Defendants will be referred to collectively as “TPL” or the “TPL entities.”
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, TO TRANSFER VENUE, AND TO STAY
ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and Case No. C 08-884 JF (HRL)
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER1 DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, TO TRANSFER VENUE, AND
TO STAY
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
ALLIACENSE LIMITED, MCM
PORTFOLIO LLC,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Acer,2 HTC,3 and Asustek4 collectively, “Plaintiffs”) each have filed separate declaratory judgment actions in this Court. Defendant Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”)5 moves for dismissal, transfer, or stay of the actions. The Court has considered the briefing submitted by the parties as well as the oral arguments presented at the hearing on September 19, 2008. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.
6 Asustek’s declaratory judgment action, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 08-884 JF (HRL), has been related to N.D. Cal. Case No. C 08-877 JF (HRL) filed by Acer and N.D. Cal. Case No. C 08-882 JF (HRL) filed by HTC, all of which were filed on February 8, 2008. On February 13, 2008, Asustek filed an amended complaint adding Asus International as an additional plaintiff, MCM as an additional defendant, and adding two additional patents-in suit.
7 The MMP patents include United States Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“‘336 patent”), 5,784,584 (“‘584 patent”), 5,440,749 (“‘749 patent”), 6,598,148 (“‘148 patent”), and 5,530,890 (“‘890 patent”). 8The CFP patents include U.S. Patent Nos.6,438,638 (“‘638 Patent”), 6,976,623 (“‘623 Patent”), 7,295,443 (‘443 Patent”), and 7,162,549 (“‘549 Patent”).
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, TO TRANSFER VENUE, AND TO STAY
I. BACKGROUND
TPL claims to own or control nine patents that are at issue in three related declaratory judgment actions.6 Five of these patents are known as the Moore Microprocessor Portfolio patents (“MMP patents”).7 The remaining four patents at issue, asserted by Asustek only, are a part of the CORE Flash Portfolio (“CFP patents”).8 In 2006, TPL filed a patent infringement suit based upon three of the MMP patents against unrelated third parties in the United States District for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Texas action”). Judge John Ward held a claim construction hearing and issued a decision construing the patents. Although the litigation resolved before proceeding to trial, TPL appealed a portion of the claim construction ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to one of the three patents in suit; the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment against TPL.
In the instant actions, Plaintiffs allege that in late 2005, TPL enlisted its Cupertino, California-based licensing entity, Alliacense, to demand that Plaintiffs enter into royalty-bearing licenses with respect to the MMP and CFP patents. TPL claimed that Plaintiffs’ products infringed the subject patents and that Plaintiffs could be liable for substantial infringement damages. TPL expressly threatened to file suit against Plaintiffs. The parties met on numerous occasions between early 2006 and February 2008, but negotiations were unsuccessful. Plaintiffs filed the instant actions on February 8, 2008. On April 25, 2008, TPL filed patent infringement actions against Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven of the MMP and CFP 9 Originally, TPL requested a stay pending its appeal to the Federal Circuit in the Texas action against third parties; however, as noted above the Federal Circuit since has affirmed the judgment against TPL in that action.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, TO TRANSFER VENUE, AND TO STAY
patents. That action is pending. TPL moves for three alternative forms of relief in this Court: (1)dismissal of the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); (2) in the alternative, transfer of the actions to the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or (3) a stay of the actions pending resolution of TPL’s action against Plaintiffs in Texas.9
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss or Transfer TPL seeks dismissal of the instant declaratory relief actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit has held that under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a district court may exercise jurisdiction where “[t]he facts alleged under all the circumstances show a substantial controversy between parties with adverse interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Micron Technology, Inc. v. Mosaid Technologies, Inc., 518 F.3d 897, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, TPL has accused Plaintiffs of patent infringement, threatened to sue Plaintiffs, and sued other parties on the same or similar facts, making these threats credible. Negotiations between the parties were unsuccessful. TPL has filed infringement actions against Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas with respect to the same patents at issue in this action. As in Micron,"the record evidence amply supports a real and substantial dispute between these parties." 518 F.3d at 901..
TPL argues that under Micron, regardless of whether there is a case or controversy, the Court may decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction when there are “well-founded” reasons for doing so, including the “convenience and suitability of competing forums.” Micron, 518 F.3d at 902. TPL argues that “the jurisdiction question is basically the same as a transfer action under [28 U.S.C.] § 1404(a).” Id. at 904. The Court addresses the alternative motions to dismiss and transfer as follows:
10 The witness, Mr. Fish, resides in Dallas, Texas, which is outside of the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Texas. However, TPL argues that Judge Ward held in 2006 that “a court
may compel any witness residing in the state in which the court sits to attend trial.” Singleton v. Volkswagon of America, 2006 WL 2634768 at 3 (E.D. Tex. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
11 This factual assertion is disputed. TPL argues that Asustek has an office and place of business in Austin and El Paso, Texas. Plaintiffs deny having any significant contacts with
Texas.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, TO TRANSFER VENUE, AND TO STAY
1. Convenience and Efficiency Factors Under § 1404(a), "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have neen brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court must consider both public factors, which go to the interests of justice, and private factors, which go to the convenience of the parties and witnesses. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 1986). As noted by the Federal Circuit in Micron, "the general rule favors the forum of the first-filed action," but "the trial courts have discretion to make exceptions to this general rule in the interest of justice or expediency." Micron, 518 F.3d at 904 (citing Genetech Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
TPL asserts that judicial economy and convenience favor transferring these cases to the Eastern District of Texas. TPL emphasizes the fact that Judge Ward invested considerable time
and resources to become familiar with, and has construed the claims of, three of the patents at issue in the instant actions. TPL asserts that transfer to Judge Ward would make the most efficient use of time and would prevent duplication of resources. Finally, TPL argues that the Eastern District of Texas is the most convenient forum for witnesses, parties, and for the expedient collection of evidence. TPL asserts that the sole third-party patent inventor in the case can be subpoenaed only if the case is tried in the Eastern District of Texas,10 that Plaintiffs have significant contacts with Texas,11 and that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be afforded no Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., HTC Corporation, and Asustek 12 Computer, Inc. are foreign nationals. However, Plaintiffs conduct all U.S. business through their American subsidiaries, Acer America Corp., HTC America, and Asus Computer International, respectively.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, TO TRANSFER VENUE, AND TO STAY
weight because Plaintiffs are foreign entities.12 Plaintiffs assert a total of nine patents; in the prior action before Judge Ward, only three of these patents were at issue, and they were asserted against different defendants. Because additional patents are at issue here, both parties will have to dedicate additional time and resources regardless of the forum in which the case ultimately is heard. Moreover, convenience factors weigh heavily in favor of retaining the case in this Court. Three of the four TPL entities are headquartered or have offices in this district (the remaining entity is located in Carlsbad, California), and three of the four Plaintiff entities have their primary places of business in this district. Further, all of the inventors named on the patents in suit, with the exception of Mr. Fish, are residents of this district. Thus, this district affords direct access to witnesses and tangible evidence, and makes travel for parties and witnesses most convenient. The Court finds unpersuasive the argument that Plaintiffs are foreign nationals, and thus that their choice of forum need not be heeded. Plaintiffs conduct all U.S. manufacturing and sales through their U.S. subsidiaries, all of which are named as Plaintiffs in this action, and three of which are located in this district.
2. Risk of Inconsistent Rulings
Uniformity in rulings is an important consideration in deciding a transfer motion in patent cases. TPL asserts that because the judgment in the Texas action still may be appealed to the
United States Supreme Court, maintaining jurisdiction in this Court might result in inconsistent rulings. Further, TPL has filed a new action in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of seven of the nine patents at issue in this case. TPL’s argument regarding a possible appeal to the Supreme Court is speculative. Additionally, as noted earlier the original Texas action dealt with only three of the patents in question, and TPL does not claim that the scope of infringement in that action is co-extensive with that of the alleged infringement in this case. While Judge Ward’s claim construction ruling is not
13 At the hearing, the possibility of splitting the action was raised. The Court lacks the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer only a portion of the case. Gaston v. Gottesman,
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31635 at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2007) (citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. County Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1991)). In theory, this court could sever a portion of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, but the Court concludes that severance is not warranted in this case and would not aid in judicial efficiency. res judicata, this Court certainly will consider it and give it whatever persuasive weight it deems appropriate. Finally, as Plaintiffs point out,“pon a decision by this Court to maintain jurisdiction over this action, the Eastern District of Texas Court can be expected to apply a first-to file analysis that will result in a transfer of the second-filed Texas actions to this Court. See Texas Instruments v. Micron Semiconductor, 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993)” Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay at 15, n. 15. The Federal Circuit recently reversed this Court’s dismissal of a declaratory relief action in a factually similar case. See Micron, 518 F.3d 901. The Federal Circuit has announced a general rule that it would be an “abuse of discretion” to transfer a first-filed declaratory relief action to another district based on the existence of a prior suit in that district when, as here, the prior suit was not pending at the time the declaratory judgment relief action was filed and where the firstfiled action will settle the legal relations of the parties. See id. at 905.13
B. Motion to Stay
TPL asserts that if this Court does not transfer the instant actions, the actions should be stayed pending the resolution of TPL’s newly-filed case against Plaintiffs filed in the Eastern District of Texas. To obtain a stay, TPL must meet the same standard required for a preliminary injunction. See Abbassi v. I.N.S., 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, it must show either that
(1) it faces irreparable harm if the action goes forward and that is likely to succeed on the merits or its appeal; (2) that the balance of hardships favors a stay and that “serious questions” are raised. See Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 874 (9th Cir. 2000). TPL has not provided adequate grounds for a stay in this case.
IV. ORDER
Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay are DENIED.
DATED: October 21, 2008
Signed BY Jeremy Fogel
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge
Date : 10/23/2008 @ 9:00AM
Source : Business Wire
Stock : Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC)
Quote : 0.155 0.0 (0.00%) @ 9:05AM
Letter to the Shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation from President/CEO Rick Goerner on Business Update
To all shareholders and stakeholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC), this letter provides an update on significant business activities at the Company. I am committed to facilitate regular communication to Patriot Scientific’s shareholders through these letters to provide additional insight on topical business issues and to provide a uniform status report on important activities at the Company.
The Company will conduct its annual meeting next week, and I will summarize details of that meeting to all shareholders after it is over, however, in keeping with my theme of regular communication, I wanted to provide a brief update on Patriot’s business activities and address a few issues prior to the meeting. In this letter I will focus on three topics: 1) a brief update on activities to expand Patriot Scientific’s future business prospects, 2) plans for the upcoming Annual Shareholder Meeting and proposals seeking shareholder approval, and 3) comments on some recent issues raised by shareholders.
Update on Activities to Position Patriot Scientific for the future The key theme of Patriot’s evolving M&A strategy is to leverage our current capital resources (cash and stock), and the future earnings generated from the company’s MMP™ Portfolio interest, into a viable growth-oriented operating company. Patriot Scientific has a strong balance sheet. Our favorable cash position and trading liquidity are attractive to many companies (both public and private) seeking cash to grow. In fact, current market conditions can be viewed as a “most opportunistic” time to acquire valuable business assets to build long term shareholder value.
The Crossflo Systems acquisition, closed September 1, represents Patriot Scientific’s first full M&A transaction. Crossflo’s unique data sharing software tool addresses a complex, widespread, and fundamental challenge to meeting the government’s widely publicized “Connect the Dots” objective. These requirements are certainly evident in Homeland Security (National Fusion Centers), law enforcement and healthcare (fueled by recent Congressional legislative changes). Each of these markets represents multi-billion dollar revenue opportunities for database integration software. As I reported in my last letter, despite the early and developing nature of this new public sector data sharing market, Crossflo has demonstrated benchmark revenue projects in each of these sectors.
We are excited to note that Crossflo’s technology and logo are highlighted with Hewlett Packard’s (HP) Integrity Non-Stop server technology on its healthcare solutions website as a partner for HP’s healthcare initiative. Crossflo and HP are actively involved in several pilot healthcare projects that could grow into multi-million dollar initiatives connecting hospitals, physicians groups, and other medical service providers. With HP as a partner we are confident that we can increase Crossflo’s market presence and accelerate revenues in the healthcare sector.
HP web link: http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-6005ENW.pdf Additionally, Crossflo has expanded its healthcare product offering to include a solution from a company called Iameter to bundle Iameter’s “quality of care” data analysis software for healthcare applications. Iameter has provided, for several years, a healthcare software platform for hospitals and physician groups to assess the quality of care delivery against state and federal healthcare standards to help them realize quality improvements and reduced cost. Iameter’s solutions have recently become important to healthcare providers because Medicare has just announced that for the first time quality of care will now affect the amounts healthcare providers are reimbursed for services provided to Medicare patients. This fundamental change in the nation’s largest healthcare reimbursement system makes Iameter’s technology a timely and compelling addition to Crossflo’s data sharing technology. Iameter’s software product and services are now being offered as components of the HP-Crossflo “Health Information Solution.” As we believe Iameter’s product is very synergistic with Crossflo’s, Patriot has executed a Memorandum of Understanding to acquire the assets of Iameter, merging their resources into Crossflo before year-end if the transaction is finalized.
We had planned to file historical and proforma financial statements for Crossflo with the SEC in conjunction with our recent 10-Q filing, but the finalization of certain tax structure issues for the transaction have caused a delay in creating the required financial reports. We fully expect, however, to meet or beat the November 17, 2008 SEC filing deadline. At the shareholder meeting, I will outline plans moving forward to increase revenues and profits based on Patriot Scientific’s ability to provide additional capital resources to drive the Crossflo business. Crossflo management will also be available at the meeting for questions.
With Crossflo’s data sharing tools as the core, we are continuing to evaluate other opportunities to acquire complementary software products with specific emphasis on healthcare and government/law enforcement applications. We expect these activities will help Crossflo to better capitalize on these emerging opportunities by broadening and accelerating future customer engagements and revenues.
Annual Shareholders meeting and proposals for shareholder approval As you are now aware, our annual shareholder meeting will be held in Carlsbad, CA on October 30, 2008 at 10:00 am. I am looking forward to a productive meeting and to meeting many of the Patriot shareholders. We will be conducting the formal shareholders business meeting promptly at 10:00 am with a brief business overview and Q&A panel to follow to address specific inquiries.
I wish to bring to your attention two of the proposals which have been put before the shareholders for approval: 1. Increase the 2006 stock option plan by 5 million shares (approximately 1.2% of the outstanding shares).
2. Increase the authorized shares from 500,000,000 to 600,000,000 shares.
Both of these initiatives are a consequence of our M&A efforts. The first proposal addresses the need to provide a means to attract, retain and motivate employees, primarily new Patriot employees. A consequence of a successful M&A effort is increased employee headcount. As we become more established as an operating company in the technology sector, we will need to provide for employee incentive stock options that are customary for companies like Patriot. For example, closing the Crossflo transaction, increased Patriot’s headcount from 4 in January 2008 to more than 25 today. I could project 45 to 50 or more employees by mid-2009, and Patriot simply does not have sufficient option shares available to provide for our existing and planned new employees. Patriot’s current option pool represents less than 3% of the shares outstanding. Our motion increases this percentage to less than 4% of the outstanding shares, still very far below the average for technology companies.
The second proposal is to provide adequate “currency value” with which to enable Patriot’s management and Imperial Capital, Patriot Scientific’s investment banker, to continue to pursue M&A discussions with other potential operating companies (both public and private). Particularly in this weakened market, we believe these additional shares will be critical to realizing value from our ability to pursue attractive operating entities capable of increasing Patriot Scientific’s market capitalization. We are building momentum with our M&A pursuits and have several very interesting companies with whom we are in discussion. I urge that you consider a favorable vote on this proposal.
Management and the Board of Directors are seeking your approval for these two proposals to continue to have the tools to execute our M&A plans for future growth and profitability. As an increasing number of brokers today will not vote your shares on your behalf, it is extremely important that all shareholders actively vote their shares for these initiatives to pass.
Comments on other shareholder inquiries 1) Update on USPTO actions on MMP(TM) patent re-examinations 2) Questions regarding a reverse split of Patriot shares 3) What are we doing to increase the awareness of Patriot's story (IR update) 1) Update on USPTO actions on MMP™ patent re-examinations I have stressed the fact that the patent re-examination process is a very complicated and lengthy process. Patent Office actions are publicly disclosed, and we look forward to the final actions by the USPTO. Both Patriot Scientific and TPL are involved in litigation regarding the patents, and comments regarding the status of the various patent re-examinations and patent office actions cannot be made at this time.
TPL/Alliacense continues, however, to engage new licensees as evidenced by the new MMP™ licenses announced with Rockwell Automation and Respironics.
2) Questions regarding a reverse split of Patriot’s shares Several shareholders have expressed concerns on both sides of this question, namely: a. We hope that you are not contemplating a reverse split that could potentially be a short term fix to our weaker share price, but often has negative long term impact on a company's market cap and, b. When will Patriot reverse split its shares to pursue a listing on a more broadly traded exchange with access to additional investors and financial institutions precluded from trading in OTC shares? Patriot’s management and the Board are keenly sensitive to the concerns of the shareholders on both sides of this question and will, together with our legal and financial advisors, including Imperial Capital, continue to evaluate this issue. There is no current discussion to pursue a reverse split at this time, but two scenarios would likely trigger the consideration of this action: a larger M&A transaction with a strong revenue, profit and market perspective and/or a reverse merger of Patriot into a current public company trading on another exchange.
I believe that it will be in the best interest of shareholders long term to seek listing on a more broadly traded exchange, but do not feel that current business conditions warrant active pursuit of this goal today.
3) What are we doing to increase the awareness of Patriot’s story (IR update) In mid-summer we changed the Company’s public relations (PR) and investor relations (IR) strategy bringing on Ibis Consulting, announcing the plans for internal IR support to complement Ibis’s efforts and move PR in a different direction. We believe that those efforts have been well received and are operating very effectively today. I have received numerous shareholder comments on Angela Hartley and her professional handling of shareholder inquiries.
Further, it is imperative to grow awareness of Patriot among new potential investors. Toward that end Ibis has driven a very proactive program of potential new investor meetings and financial conference participation on a broad front. Since early September I have met with potential investors in New York City (twice), Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County and Florida. I recently attended the FSXone conference on Fort Lauderdale, where we had the opportunity to meet one on one with new potential investors, present the Patriot story to a large group of interested broker/dealers and investors and even got a five minute spot on a national radio business show (American Scene Radio with Steve Crowley).
Additionally, before year-end I am planning to be in New York City again for new investor meetings and the Paulsen Conference (November 12). Ibis is coordinating a European road show for early December and San Francisco in November. I expect to spend a minimum of a third of my time positioning the Patriot story with new potential investors.
In these troubled times for the market, Patriot certainly cannot, and should not control the price of our shares, however, we can insure that we extend our best effort to increase the awareness of Patriot’s evolving story and let market forces take it from there.
As always, it is my objective to continually improve the quality, uniformity and responsiveness of our communications to shareholders and the marketplace, and I will continue to look forward to your comments and inquiries.
I trust this letter has provided you with additional information regarding the status of key business initiatives at Patriot Scientific and the progress we are making toward building a “new Patriot” with solid future growth and profitability.
I’ll look forward to meeting many of you at the upcoming shareholder meeting.
Sincerely, Rick Goerner President/CEO Patriot Scientific Corporation Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the Company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) and Alliacense are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). PTSC is a trademark of Patriot Scientific Corporation. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
Full information regarding the Annual Shareholders meeting and proposals for shareholder approval can be found in Patriot’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2008 annual meeting of shareholders filed with the SEC on September 22, 2008, and the Patriot’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ending May 31, 2008, filed with the SEC on August 14, 2008, as well as Patriot’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, filed with the SEC on October 10, 2008, all of which are available on Patriot’s website at www.ptsc.com, or at www.sec.gov.
Mir wäre es deutlich lieber, eine Nasdaq-Bude zu aquerieren um endlich mal den Shareprice nach vorne zu bringen und das man mal deutlich bei der Uptso Druck von anderen Seiten aufbaut. Allein der Verlust der durch das herauszögern der Entscheidung entsteht kostet Millionen. Und den Preis nochmal mit Optionen und Erhöhung verwässern?? Mal eben 20% mehr Shares ausgeben?? NÖ!!! Nicht bevor der Preis bei 60 cent liegt! Und was das Insiderdealing anbetrifft, da vermisse ich auch einen Vertrauensbeweis. Turley sein großer Hund? So ein A.loch.
Ich hoffe, das das alles mal auf den SHM deulich zur Sprache gebracht wird. Von meinem Investment erwarte ich die nächsten drei Jaher nichts.
Das braucht noch Zeit, ja aber keine 3 Jahre mehr.
Grüße Abenteurer
Weniger als 3 Jahre..? Wäre echt schön, aber wie gesagt, hier gab es bisher mehr tiefen als höhen wenn ich da mal allein an die Ablade-orgien von Swartz denke...Gruß bambam
| Press Release | Source: Patriot Scientific Corporation |
Patriot Scientific Corporation to Present at Paulson Investment's Westergaard Conference
Monday October 27, 4:01 pm ET
---31st Annual Westergaard Conference to Showcase Emerging Industry Leaders---
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rick Goerner, chief executive officer of Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC - News), will present at the Paulson Investment’s Westergaard Conference taking place at the Waldorf Astoria in New York on Wednesday, November 12, 2008.
|
Patriot is a leading intellectual-property licensing company that has recently embarked on an aggressive business expansion initiative to expand its IP portfolio and invest in or acquire early-stage technology companies. The Westergaard conference showcases emerging-growth small cap companies in a forum for investment professionals, industry practitioners and senior analysts. Individual meetings are also available.
For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.com. For information on Paulson Investment, visit:http://www.paulsoninvestment.com or for conference information, visit: www.westergaardconference.com.
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Contact:
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760-547-2700 ext. 102
Source: Patriot Scientific Corporation
I read a few posts where the posters wrote about the possibility of the patents being invalidated. I haven't seen any responses to those posts yet. Based on my understanding of patents, for a patent to be invalidated ALL claims have to be invalidated. For the 584, 148 and 336 the USPTO has not attempted to invalidate all claims. Based on the replies by Moore, none of the claims in question have been modified. So if the patents are reapproved as they are now the claims that resulted in over 250 million being received in 3 years, will still be valid. Lets assume a worst case scenario for a moment. That scenario would result in one or more of the claims being found invalid. Even if that happens there are other claims on each of those patents which TPL can enforce.
While I am not happy about the possibility of dilution happening, my understanding is that the purpose of increasing the number of outstanding shares is to provide "adequate currency value". That RG wants 100 million shares does not mean that he will use them. Chances are he could but the way I understood his last letter, it is mainly a leveraging tool. It does not mean that he does not expect to receive 20 million more. It merely means that he is uncertain when he will receive the money. In the meantime if an ideal company does become interested in becoming part of PTSC, if RG does not have enough leverage then that opportunity will simply pass by. Or one or more of the patents could be approved next month, new shareholders jump in, the shareprice shoots up, more companies settle and he won't have to dilute or he won't have to dilute as much.
I think it is very clear from some of the posts that existing shareholders will be happier if CJ resigns. CJ appears to be the biggest impediment to the improvement of PTSC shares. It appears that existing shareholders are reluctant to approve RG's proposals or unwilling to invest more in PTSC, out of distrust.
Finally, PTSC can no longer be considered a patent troll. If the T3 case goes to trial, the jury will be more forgiving towards an operating company rather than a company that appears to be a simple patent troll.
Also......ich denke das war ganz sachlich und inhaltlich nachvollziehbar...oder ????
Started shortly after 10am
RG opened the meeting - RG introduced the nine members on the dais also various ptsc vips in audience inclusive of Mac L (Dad and TPL London vp came in a few minutes late). Inclusive of ptsc vips were folks from talis, ssdi and Crossflo. I calculated there were aprox 20 folks or more in attendance assoc with company.
Overall attendance probably in the range of 100 or a bit less. Many empty seats and room was significantly smaller then those at LaCosta.
Polls were then opened and closed as no one wanted to vote at meeting then the total of vote was documented.
301 million shares out of total outstanding were voted on and as has been reported all motions passed. Angela said % of shares that voted for motions would be reported in 10K.
RG then made a presentation of what has occurred in the past year. He spoke for a few minutes on institutional investors. He wants to concentrate especially on European Investment firms as they have a longer term outlook. There was a very brief mention of moving to another exchange which will not occur any time soon and is not presently in picture.
After RG's presentation which went to aprox 10:25am Mac L got up and gave the standard TPL presentation most of us have heard from the previous meetings. His presentation was direct and professional but mostly concentrated on how great Alliancese is (which is of course owned by TPL).
He did say that the MMP is one of 6 soon to be 89 licensing programs that Alliancense works on. Obviously the mmp is not the only objective for Alliancense. They have many offices across the USA and offices in Bulgaria, Paris and London.
(personal note: if I was invested in tpl I would have been very happy with his report)
Re: MMP - there were 641 customer mtgs in '08. The employees of Alliancense put on over 1.5 million air miles on the tab in '08.
as of Oct '08
654 notices were sent vs 485 in '07
453 active accounts vs 284 in '07
338 responded vs 222 in '07
in '08
35% of mtgs were in Asia vs 53% in '07
56% of mtgs were in N. America vs. 31% in '07
15% of mtgs were in Europe vs. 13% in '07
% of companies mtg and negotiating with All is 96% greater than in '07
At !!:05 Dan L. took over for Mac
He was as always much more flamboyant and folksy and opinionated.
He concentrated a lot of his comments on their efforts to defeat legislation that if enacted would probably reduce value of MMP from 50% to 90%. He thought 90% was most accurate. He felt there was an excellent chance that the legislation would come up again in '09 and basically gave credit to Penn Senator for not allowing vote in '08.
He said that the 3 companies suing us in N. Ca were initially negotiating in good faith and then out of the blue sued. He felt there was good and bad in Ca. vs Texas courts.
He felt that the reexam should be completed in quarters and not in years and though he could not guarantee the results they felt good about the outcome (what else was he going to say).
11:30am Leckrones went longer then expected.
Renne Senn - Pres of Crossflo then made presentation which to be honest was very detailed and though I understood most of it left me impressed with what they want to do.
(Note: Angela Hartley actually is a vp in charge of admin with Crossflo and is also now the inside IR representative with entire company. She is very nice and competent)
R. Senne made a very professional presentation. I really was trying to listen to his presentation and did try to jot down his data off slides but I am not great at multi tasking especially when I am trying to listen but he said Patriot's intent is to try for 7 Primary Function in multi tasking software...... textual analysis, user authorization, data analysis, data integrity, data authorization and I missed the last two......
He said Crossflo and HP have been in partnership for the four years but this past month Crossflo actually rec'd their first dollars from this partnership.
He said they will need money to grow and expect to use MMP toward this end
11:55
RG then spoke again and said due to lack of time the bal of his presentation would be put on the web site on Monday
He did say that ptsc plans on having an investor conference call in mid January following release by a few days of 10Q. The call would be about five minutes of news and about 25 minutes of Q & A
He has had more then 2 dozen meetings with institutional investors. At the Florida mtg last week 13 funds showed interest in ptsc.
He will be going to Europe soon.
Right now the company has 21 million in cash
Had 6.6 million in sales in first quarter of '09
more than 200 hospitals (out of 7000) will be participating in web cast with HP and Crossflo in December
Lastly he said they cannot control price but can present a good picture.
Q & A 12:05pm
Shareholder - Stan Kaplan - asked for justification of additional options and why we needed 100 million more authorized shares?
R.G. - for tech company our shares for options are very low %. Should be in 12% range not 4% range. Had 4 employees now have 24 (with Crossflo) and if Iameter deal goes through will have many more. They will need to get very competent employees and need shares to give in options.
They are in mkt buying shares almost daily but they need more shares for M&A
Shareholder - either gave no name or did not catch it - is co. damaged by litigation and legislation?
Mac Leckrone answered but Dan jumped in and repeated what he had said earlier (must say that Dan many times self injected opinions throughout the meeting which if any other shareholder had done that we would have been asked to leave and rightfully so)
Shareholder - Steve Wagoner - controls 2-3 million shares - Said how well run meeting was etc etc then asked two questions.
What are institutional investors telling RG?
R.G. - some do buy over the counter stocks but most told him they will put ptsc on their watch list and will keep in touch. Major problem is that it is a penny stock.
2nd Question from Steve - Regarding board and compensation. Why do they not take a cut in comp or at very least put comp after taxes into stock purchases.
Dan L jumped in before RG or board could talk and said that he insisted that the board be paid and they were all great and that Steve had no idea how good they were and how happy he was to work with them.
Steve said that was all fine and good but he wanted to hear from the board which Dan did not like.
Board CJ and Gloria went on about how they were not paid anything before '05 or '06 and that they spend part of each day on ptsc and CJ said that he is in on every meeting and that he needs to ask Gloria about numbers because he does not understand numbers and that if it wasn't for the board and Dp then his friends in Atlanta would own ptsc as a shell
(note: I felt that Dan L was rude and out of line but that is the way he has been at every meeting in a folksy sort of way).
Shareholder - Stever Olson - asked RG for guidance?
RG said no guidance possible on MMP but is hopeful after putting together an plan to have guidance on Crossflo etc and may have some info by conference call time in Jan.
Mtg over aprox 12:40pm for board members to take 1 on 1 Questions.