Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Die Anwälte sind aktiv.
New Pacer--DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO ACER’S MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ALLOW ACER TO DISCLOSE PATENT L.R. 3-1 EXCHANGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC., Acer,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO ACER’S MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND ALLOW ACER TO DISCLOSE PATENT L.R. 3-1 EXCHANGE
Date: April 14, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: Courtroom 2, 5th Floor
Before: The Honorable Howard Lloyd
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway Inc. (collectively “Acer”) require the Court’s assistance in connection with two provisions of a proposed stipulated protective order in this action. First, Acer has moved for the insertion of a proposed paragraph 7.5 entitled “Treatment of Party or Third-Party’s Own Information or Analyses of Own Information.” See Mar Decl. In Support of Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, Docket No. 106, Ex. B at 7.5. Nothing remotely resembling such a provision is included in the Northern District model protective order. This proposed provision would give Acer an unfettered ability to disseminate to undisclosed third parties any TPL-designated confidential documents simply because Acer perceives these documents to be derivatives, analyses, or summaries of Acer’s confidential documents. This proposal would also circumvent procedures already in place in the model protective order for challenging confidentiality designations, whereby the parties must first meet and confer to resolve these disputes and seek judicial intervention, if necessary. See id., Ex. A, at 6.1-6.3. Indeed, although Acer claims in its Motion to Enter Protective Order and Allow Plaintiffs to Disclose Patent L.R. 3-1 Exchange, Docket No. 102 (“Acer’s Motion”), that the information it intends to disseminate pursuant to paragraph 7.5 relates to Defendants’ infringement contentions, the actual proposed language goes far beyond that. The proposed provision is so ambiguous and overbroad that it sweeps in another party’s work product (“nothing herein shall restrict a party from having access to portions of any derivatives, … reports, analyses, summaries [or] characterizations … that refer to the designated materials that the party has produced in discovery”). Acer’s provision would also give the parties full discretion (not subject to any restrictions or safeguards) to share with any “third party” information that “appears to be from or belong to that third-party or any derivatives, abstracts, briefs, memoranda, reports, analyses, summaries, characterizations or testimony that refer to that third-party’s information.” Docket No. 106, Ex. B at 7.5. Notably, there are no restrictions whatsoever on what these “third parties” can do once they have received the documents from Acer, so it is likely that this information would become publicly available. Acer’s contention that it needs to disclose claim charts to unspecified “third parties” because it does not know how its own products work is wholly unsupported and, if true, casts doubt on Acer’s good faith in bringing this declaratory relief action in the first place. Presumably, Acer had a good faith basis to assert that it does not infringe any valid claims of the patents-in-suit when it filed the declaratory judgment complaint in this case, and TPL is entitled to know Acer’s contentions in this regard.1 More fundamentally, Acer is free to communicate with its manufacturers to develop its defenses – it simply cannot share TPL’s confidentia
information with third parties in doing so. Accordingly, the Court should refuse to adopt Acer’s proposed paragraph 7.5. The second dispute deals with Defendants’ request to include language that modifies Section 7.3(b) in the model protective order to allow two Alliacense engineers—Divya Madhyasta and Torsten Partsch—access to Acer’s highly confidential materials. Madhyasta and Partsch are primarily responsible for conducting the necessary technical analysis in support of this patent litigation and working with Defendants’ outside counsel in connection with this litigation. Madhyasta and Partsch have unique technical expertise based on their years of experience with the field of technology described in the patents-in-suit. These engineers must have access to Acer’s highly confidential materials to lend their knowledge and skills to the technical analysis necessary to the efficient management and resolution of this case. While Acer’s proposed paragraph 7.5 does not include any obligation to preserve the Defendants’ confidential information or even identify the potential recipients of the infringement contentions, Defendants have specifically identified the two Alliacense engineers who request access to Acer’s highly confidential information and who have volunteered to execute strict acknowledgments of the protective order that prohibit their ability to use, share or communicate the substance of Acer’s highly confidential materials with anyone who prosecutes patents or 1 Defendants have served interrogatories on the Plaintiffs seeking the bases for their noninfringement and invalidity contentions set forth in the First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. develops products. See Docket No. 106, Ex. A at Ex. B [Acknowledgment and Agreement to be Bound re: Employees of Alliacense]. Precluding Madhyasta and Partsch from having access to Acer’s highly confidential materials would severely prejudice Defendants’ ability to efficiently prosecute their case. In contrast, there is minimal risk that there would be any inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, particularly in light of the strict acknowledgments the engineers are willing to make under oath. They do not participate in the development of products or prosecution of new patents, and they are not competitive decision makers under the Ninth Circuit precedent in Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Court should adopt Defendants’ proposed protective order (attached as Ex. A to Docket No. 106), which includes the slightly modified paragraph 7.3(b) and the Acknowledgment to be Bound re: Employees of Alliacense.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Acer’s Proposed Paragraph 7.5 Would Improperly Allow Acer to Unilaterally Determine Whether Information Is Confidential and to Share Defendants’ Competitively Sensitive, Proprietary Information With Third Parties. 1. Acer’s Proposed Provision Creates Unnecessary Risks that Confidential Information Would Be Disclosed. During the meet-and-confer process, the parties agreed to most of the terms found in the Northern District model Protective Order, including paragraphs 6.1-6.3, which sets forth a meet and confer process followed by judicial intervention, if necessary, for a party to challenge the confidentiality designations of the other party. Acer has, nonetheless, proposed paragraph 7.5 entitled “Treatment of Party or Third-Party’s Own Information Or Analyses of Own Information,” which circumvents the procedural safeguards agreed upon by the parties and, instead, gives Acer unfettered discretion to determine whether information produced by TPL could be disseminated to other companies or even made available publicly. Acer’s proposed paragraph 7.5 states that “Nothing herein shall restrict a party with respect to the treatment and handling of its own information of any derivatives, abstracts, briefs, memoranda, reports, analyses, summaries, characterizations or testimony that refer to a party’s own information.” Id. at 7.5. This provision would allow Acer to unilaterally determine,
without ever notifying TPL, if a document “refer[s] to [its] own information,” and would give Acer free reign to then distribute any document that it so determines as being derivative of its own information. Acer’s proposal leaves TPL without recourse to intervene or object if Acer decides to share a TPL-designated confidential document with a third party. Moreover, Acer’s proposed section 7.5 creates substantial risk of TPL’s confidential and proprietary information being disclosed to other companies not involved in this litigation with no obligation whatsoever to maintain the information as confidential. Acer’s request to disclose Defendants’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions to “third parties” exemplifies the risk associated with Acer’s proposed addition. The Preliminary Infringement Contentions contain Product Charts that were first developed by Alliacense engineers prior to the commencement of this litigation. The Product Charts, prepared a part of Alliacense’s licensing program, include proprietary, confidential technical analysis and reverse engineering results compiled by Alliacense engineers. Acer’s proposed provision would allow Acer to independently decide that the infringement contentions only contain its own confidential information and that Acer could share the document with whomever it pleases without ever consulting with TPL. If the Product Charts found in Preliminary Infringement Contentions are disseminated to companies other than Acer and Gateway, many of these companies, which include prospective licensees, will use this confidential information to delay their licensing negotiations with Alliacense, demand lower royalty rates, or refuse to enter into a licensing agreement at all. The risk of competitive harm to Alliacense’s licensing program justifies the need for the parties to keep this information confidential. 2. Disclosure of the Preliminary Infringement Contentions to Third Parties Would Competitively Harm Alliacense’s Licensing Program. As Acer acknowledges, Federal Rule 26(c) and the Northern District model protective order contemplate confidentiality of trade secrets and other confidential commercial information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis added).2 Additionally, courts have granted 2 Contrary to Acer’s unsupported assertion, Defendants have never claimed that their infringement contentions constituted a trade secret. protective orders protecting information that would harm a party’s competitive standing or put a party at a competitive disadvantage were the information to become public. In In Re Adobe Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Northern District of California entered a protective order which covered “analysis of competitors.” 141 F.R.D. 155, 161 (N.D. Cal. 1992). There, the
Court granted a protective order keeping information about competitors confidential when the “information would, if revealed to a competitor, put a company at a competitive disadvantage.” Id. at 161 (citing In Re Reporters’ Committee, 773 F.2d 1325, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“Courts have refused to permit their files to serve . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”)). The information at issue in Adobe included “information about NEC’s evaluation of its competitor’s products vis-a-vis NEC products.” Id. at 162. Similarly, in Sorenson v. Riffo, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57866, at *25 (D. Utah July 30, 2008), the court agreed to amend a stipulated protective order to include a clause making “competitive technical information, including technical analyses or comparisons of competitor’s products” “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Here, Acer’s request to disclose the Preliminary Infringement Contentions to undisclosed “third parties” would harm Defendant Alliacense’s licensing program. Alliacense is responsible for the licensing and enforcement of the patents-in-suit. See Leckrone Decl. at 2. Alliacense offers a “tiered” pricing structure for its licenses to the Moore microprocessor patent (“MMP”) portfolio, which includes the patents-in-suit. Id. at 3. This pricing structure rewards early movers with lower royalty rates. Id. These licenses typically exclude third parties such as component vendors and other indirectly related third parties. Id. To date, over 50 companies have executed license agreements with Alliacense for the MMP portfolio. Id. at 2. Currently, Alliacense is involved in ongoing discussions with companies in various industries, including companies known to supply components to Acer or partner with Acer, about licensing the MMP portfolio. Id. at 3 & 7. To help facilitate these discussions, Alliacense prepares and provides detailed “Product Charts” to prospective licensees to demonstrate how strategically significant product lines practice the inventions in the MMP portfolio. Id. at 4. These Product Reports, prepared outside the context of litigation and as part of Alliacense’s licensing efforts, depict the technical analysis, including significant reverse engineering work, conducted by Alliacense engineers that is `confidential and proprietary. Id. They include competitively sensitive, proprietary information such as the business analysis and selection of strategically significant products, the compilation of technical references and data used to support the analytical work, and the reverse engineering purchased by and/or conducted by Alliacense engineers. Id. at 6. Alliacense invests significant financial and human resources in the long sales cycles associated with this licensing business model. Id. The companies to which Acer seeks to share these Product Charts would pay substantial consideration to develop or purchase comparable information. Id. at 7. The Product Reports are a critical component of Alliacense’s licensing model, and prospective licensees
frequently compliment the detail, breadth, and organization of the Product Charts during the licensing negotiations. Id. at 4. Many of the prospective licensees operate in highly competitive industries. Id. at 3. As a result, the licensing discussions with prospective licensees must be conducted on a confidential
basis to prevent Alliacense’s competitively sensitive information from being disseminated to other prospective licensees or indirectly related third parties who supply components or partner with prospective licensees. Id. The Product Charts are stamped with “confidential” on every page to ensure that the information is treated as confidential by the recipients of the information. Id. at 5. In connection with its Preliminary Infringement Contentions in this action, Defendants attached Product Charts created by Alliacense that cover Acer and Gateway product lines. If Acer was suddenly free to share the content of the Product Reports with unidentified vendors or partners of its own choosing, some of whom are prospective licensees or companies known to be supporting the negotiating efforts of other potential licensees, these companies would use the content of the Product Charts to coordinate their responses and strategies in an effort to block and harm Alliacense’s licensing program in a coordinated refusal to deal. Id. at 7. Instead of analyzing whether its products need a license to the MMP portfolio, prospective licensees would be able to “compare notes” concerning the technical analysis found in the Product Charts. Disclosing the infringement contentions would permit potential licensees to prolong licensing negotiations by allowing prospective licensees to circulate Alliacense’s work product and facilitate endless debates concerning the details of Alliacense’s infringement analysis, the scope of another company’s potential license, and non-infringement arguments related to another company’s products. Id. at 6. This information could even wind up on the Internet. Id. at 7. Prospective licensees will leverage these negotiation tactics to try and avoid Alliacense’s tiered pricing structure and seek lower royalty rates. Id. at 6. In addition, if Acer is allowed to disseminate the Product Charts to “third parties,” the cost of enforcing and licensing the MMP portfolio will exponentially rise as Alliacense representatives will have to litigate the merits of its infringement contentions with every prospective licensee. This very notion—that information is competitively valuable by virtue of it being confidential without being a trade secret and that a company can be harmed if this information is used by unintended recipients—has been recognized by the Ninth Circuit in City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Communications, Inc., which upheld a finding of unfair competition against a company who accessed and misused the
der Text ist zu lang!!
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court preclude Acer from inserting its proposed paragraph 7.5 into the parties’ protective order. Defendants also respectfully request that the Court enter the Defendants’ protective order that allows for disclosure, subject to a strict acknowledgement, of Acer’s highly confidential materials to Alliacense in-house engineers Partsch and Madhyasta.
Dated: March 24, 2009
I represent that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on this document.
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: March 24, 2009
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
Crossflo Acquires Vigilys Platform
posted on Mar 31, 09 11:44PM
New Pacer--PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ALLOW DISCLOSURE OF PATENT L.R. 3-1 EXCHANGE
Anwaltsgeplänkel
Patriot Scientific Corporation Releases Third Fiscal Quarter Report
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific (OTCBB: PTSC) today reported the filing of its report on Form 10-Q for its fiscal 2009 quarter ended February 28, 2009.
The Company’s results included $1.4 million in revenues, compared to $0.8 for the same quarter of the prior year. Results from its investment in affiliated companies which primarily represents Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC (PDS), Patriot Scientific’s joint venture with The TPL Group, who are co-owners of the MMP™ Portfolio and responsible for its management and commercialization, were a $0.9 million loss as compared to $11.7 million in earnings for the year earlier quarter.
For the nine month period ended February 28, 2009 revenues increased to $4.6 million, as compared to $2.3 million for the comparable prior year period. The Company’s share of earnings from affiliated companies for the nine month period of fiscal 2009 was $5.7 million, compared to $16.0 million in fiscal 2008.
Net (loss) income totaled $(1.5) million and $0.8 million for the quarter and nine month period, respectively, of fiscal 2009 compared to $6.3 million and $6.7 million, respectively, for the comparable periods of fiscal 2008.
The Company will be conducting a Webcast on April 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM ET to discuss matters pertinent to its business for its shareholders and interested parties.
Rick Goerner, Patriot’s President and CEO, stated, “The objective of this quarter’s Webcast is to discuss the Company’s progress and recent M&A activities in the data sharing software market. We will also highlight customer opportunities we are targeting in both the healthcare and public safety and justice sectors,” said Mr. Goerner. “Relative to the MMP™ Portfolio, both Patriot and The TPL Group are in agreement that it would be premature and speculative to discuss the many opportunities and activities which are underway with respect to the MMP™ Portfolio. As a consequence, we have not made any recent public announcements regarding these activities and cannot discuss them in next Tuesday's Webcast.”
For the Company’s Webcast on April 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM ET participants may go to http://www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=57493 and listen live over the Internet.
Participants are encouraged to access the website approximately fifteen minutes prior to the start of the call to register, download and install any necessary audio software. If you are unable to participate during the live webcast, the call will be archived on the Web site http://www.ptsc.com/ for thirty days.
To participate in the conference call by telephone, please call 800-860-2442 (toll free in the U.S.) or 412-858-4600 (toll call outside the U.S.) and request the "Patriot Scientific" conference call.
Patriot Scientific is the joint owner, with The TPL Group, of the Moore Microprocessor Patent, or MMP™ Portfolio, key patents covering the design of microprocessor chips which are used throughout the world in products ranging from computers and cameras to printers, automobiles and industrial devices. Microprocessor chips are the “brain” of nearly every electronic and electrical device including home appliances, televisions, video game players and cell phones.
About Patriot Scientific Corporation
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation provides data sharing and secure data solutions for a connected world. Patriot Scientific has recently embarked on an aggressive business expansion initiative complementing its recent acquisition of data sharing software provider, Crossflo Systems Inc. Patriot is evaluating full M&A and minority investments in early-stage technology companies in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors. These investments are funded with revenues generated, in a large part, from the continuing successful Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio licensing partnership with The TPL Group. Patriot Scientific’s integrated core intelligence solution addresses the critical data/information sharing needs of the healthcare industry, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and federal, state, and local public safety and law enforcement agencies. For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.com.
About the MMP Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation PTSC. The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.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.
Contacts
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley
760-547-2700 ext. 102
Permalink: http://www.businesswire.com/news/google/20090409006045/en
Patriot Scientific Corporation PTSC announced today that Varian Medical Systems VAR has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio license from The TPL Group, Patriot Scientific’s exclusive MMP™ Portfolio licensing partner. Varian Medical Systems manufactures medical devices and software for treating cancer with radiation therapy.
“We are pleased to see Varian Medical Systems join the growing list of worldwide MMP licensees,” said Rick Goerner, Patriot Scientific President and CEO.
The sweeping scope of applications using MMP Portfolio design techniques continues to encourage the world’s leading manufacturers of end-user products from around the globe to become MMP Portfolio licensees. Over 50 global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have licensed the MMP Portfolio technologies.
The MMP Portfolio patents cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost designs, and are fundamental to consumer and commercial digital systems ranging from DVD players, cell phones and portable music players to communications infrastructure, medical equipment -- and automobiles which today have dozens of microprocessor-based key features and benefits.
http://patriotscientific.com/...mp;task=view&id=221&Itemid=29
To all shareholders and stakeholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation PTSC, this letter provides a brief update on business activities at the Company as covered in the recent quarterly shareholder call held on April 14, 2009. I have put the communications focus of the Company to its shareholders into these quarterly calls with plans for only supplemental letters and press releases on specific activities and topics in the interim.
In this letter I want to 1) provide a brief summary of the recent shareholder conference call in the event you were unable to participate, 2) clarify and expand on some topics that were covered in the Q&A session of the call, and 3) comment on some other recent issues raised by shareholders.
Overview of Patriot’s April 14, 2009 shareholder conference call
Patriot held its second quarterly shareholders conference call on April 14, 2009 to address our third quarter 2009 results and provide some additional insights into activities within the Company. Management reviewed the financial results of our third quarter 2009 10-Q filing with the SEC (dated April 9, 2009), discussed the current market environment and the new Obama administration initiatives, market opportunities and the current revenue outlook for our developing secure data sharing software business. We reviewed, and updated, key project work taken in conjunction with our growing list of strategic partners. The overview also discussed the recent Vigilys acquisition from Kratos Defense and Security Solutions. I also covered the development status of our two minority investments in Avot Media and Talis Data Systems. In the financial report we summarized the results for the third quarter, outlined our plans to eliminate the consolidation of Holocom revenues beginning May 1, 2009 and summarized actions the Company is implementing to reduce spending to support our software business expansion efforts. Following the call, which included over 200 participants, management answered numerous, specific shareholder questions. As was the case with the first call, I was pleased with the detail, and scope, of the questions raised by the shareholders, and our coverage analysts, and also by the professional courtesy extended by all the participants. As indicated, a complete audio file, including Q&A, can now be accessed from the Patriot website so if you did have not have a chance to participate in the call or listen to it, please go to our website. A transcript of the call was also filed with the SEC on Form 8-K on April 17, 2009 and can be found on the Patriot website under the Investors tab, under SEC Filings. I have also asked all shareholders for feedback to make future calls as productive as possible for all concerned.
As we had previously announced (before the call), due to on-going activities, I could not address any specific questions with regard to the MMP™ Portfolio.
We also used the conference call to announce our plan to roll-up, into a single brand, all of the current software business activities (Crossflo, Iameter and Vigilys), as well as any future related acquisitions, into the newly created Patriot Data Solutions Group, or PDSG, brand. We believe the positioning of Patriot Data Solutions Group, as a sub-brand to Patriot Scientific, will provide a more direct link between the market success of our software products and the public Patriot entity while eliminating confusion arising from the growing number of product names being added to our operating entity.
Conference call Q&A
The Q&A session, following the conference call, provided additional insights, and clarifications, on certain points contained in the SEC 10-Q filing or covered in the conference call script. While the call, and Q&A, lasted over one hour, I’d encourage interested shareholders to listen to the entire call and Q&A for more details.
As we reviewed the call internally after it was over, along with several shareholder inquiries to IR, several points were raised that I feel require a bit more information, or clarification.
1.
Spending reductions implemented by the Company
As the next financials to be released by the Company will not be until August, with the SEC filing of the Company’s 10-K, I believe a deeper understanding of the detail of spending reductions is in order. The spending reductions we are implementing represent nearly $1 million in annualized spending. These reductions are as a result, primarily, of suspending executive incentive compensation, reducing Board compensation consisting of Board and Committee fees and reductions in other corporate and professional services spending, including a reduction in IR efforts with respect to participation in industry conferences.
Additionally, at this time, we do not anticipate the necessity to further fund Phoenix Digital Solutions, or PDS.
We do plan, however, to increase spending with respect to certain marketing, sales and R&D efforts associated with the Crossflo, Iameter and Vigilys products.
2.
Patriot’s SEC filing disclosure requirements
Patriot takes very seriously its requirements for full SEC compliance with respect to all matters of corporate governance and disclosure. In fact, Patriot has broadly pursued voluntary releases of information beyond the SEC requirements this past year. For example, the release of all my shareholder letters, the announcement of both the Iameter and Vigilys asset purchases and even the release of individual MMP license signings are not required disclosures under SEC regulations. Patriot, under the guidance of its SEC counsel, has taken all steps deemed appropriate to insure transparency with respect to its business activities.
3.
Avot Media seeks to raise up to $8 million in additional financing
In March Patriot entered into a revolving line of credit facility for $500,000 with Avot, secured by its IP assets. This line of credit provides Avot the necessary capital to continue to execute additional mobile carrier and content delivery provider trials while revenue streams from existing commercial agreements begin to ramp up. The additional investment of external venture capital is anticipated to fully capitalize the company to expand marketing, sales and technical support resources. Avot has engaged in preliminary discussions with several interested venture firms, but does not have a committed source of funding as yet.
Additionally, Crossflo and Avot have begun to explore the possible use of Avot’s mobile content technology integrated into Crossflo’s emergency services solution.
Comments on recent shareholder inquiries
1) What is the status of the NuPOWER licensing effort?
2) Is the Company’s M&A effort on hold due to lack of cash?
3) Are there plans for a reverse split of Patriot’s shares?
1)What is the status of the NuPOWER licensing effort?
I’d like to provide a brief comment on Patriot’s partnering with NuPower Semiconductor on IP licensing. Based on resource priorities and other M&A efforts, the pursuit of new IP licensing activity has been very limited. We continue to explore a limited list of licensing opportunities for NuPower’s power management IP. We are also progressing on the filings of NuPower’s continuation patents. Patriot will become a co-assignee of three NuPower patents and all continuation patents associated with them. We will re-evaluate this effort by the end of May and determine what, if any, further involvement Patriot should pursue. While our activities to date, including the patent assignment efforts, cost Patriot less than $50K, we do not plan at this point to pursue the acquisition of any additional IP assets, rather staying focused on software M&A activities.
2)Is the Company’s M&A effort on hold due to lack of cash?
While we are sensitive to our cash situation and have executed plans to cut spending in certain areas to preserve cash, the Company is, as evidenced by the recent acquisition of the Vigilys product, continuing the pursuit of synergistic software product offerings to complement the Crossflo CDX product for healthcare and the public safety and justice sectors of the market. We have also continued to re-purchase Patriot shares on the open market at attractive prices. We review our cash position, frequently, in the overall context of our general cash forecast scenarios. We will prioritize spending that is focused on driving new software revenues with our existing product offerings even as we consider new M&A efforts going forward.
3)Are there plans for a reverse split of Patriot’s shares?
A frequent topic of concern for many shareholders has been Patriot’s plans regarding a future reverse stock split. After careful analysis of our options, and with guidance from Imperial Capital, we have determined that a reverse stock split would not be in the best interest of the shareholders in the current economic environment. I’d like to continue to emphasize that if we were to ever move in this direction, it would only be after we felt confident that our developing prospective businesses would support, and grow, the resulting share price.
It has remained my objective to continually improve the quality, uniformity and responsiveness of our communications to shareholders and to the marketplace, and I will continue to look forward to your comments, feedback and inquiries.
I trust this letter has provided you with additional information regarding the status of key business initiatives at Patriot Scientific. I am excited about the progress we are making toward building the new Patriot Data Solutions Group with opportunities for solid future growth and profitability.
While the times ahead remain challenging, we believe that we have continued to make good strides in positioning Patriot on the path to future growth and success.
Sincerely,
Rick Goerner
President/CEO
Patriot Scientific Corporation
http://patriotscientific.com/...mp;task=view&id=220&Itemid=29
The '584 is IN! Cert to be issued
Bibliographic Data
Application Number: 90/008,225 Customer Number: -
Filing or 371 (c) Date: 11-15-2006 Status: Reexam Terminated -- Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate Mailed
Application Type: Re-Examination Status Date: 04-21-2009
Examiner Name: BANANKHAH, MAJID A Location: ELECTRONIC
Group Art Unit: 3992 Location Date: -
Confirmation Number: 6486 Earliest Publication No: -
Attorney Docket Number: 0081-011D4X1 Earliest Publication Date: -
Class / Subclass: 712/001 Patent Number: -
First Named Inventor: 5784584 Issue Date of Patent:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37197474
allen noch einen schönen Abend
CJ
P.S. Kurs und Volumen ziehen an..........
sieht doch sehr gut aus oder ???
ARM ist doch jetzt wieder theoret. am Haken...oder ?
Gruss
DS
Auf Agoracom wird die Frage, ob ARM noch dran ist, kontrovers diskutiert. Die meisten dort sind aber auch nur am Spekulieren.
Trotzdem: Wenn das 548 rezertifiziert ist, gibt es m. E. auch Hoffnung für die anderen und man hat jetzt einen aktuellen Zeitrahmen.
Gruß NR
PS: ich hatte gelesen (meine ich), dass Cl. 29 sogar positiver geändert worden ist...also stärker ist... ????
- Crossflo DataExchange(R) Product Line Included on Federal GSA Contract -
SAN DIEGO, April 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Crossflo Systems, Inc., a Patriot Scientific company (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC), announced today that it has been awarded a United States General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Information Technology (IT-70) contract to offer selected products and services including its Crossflo DataExchange(R) software solutions.
The GSA schedule enables federal government agencies to purchase products and services from approved Schedule holders conveniently and efficiently at pre-negotiated rates. Approval for the supplier requires an extensive and rigorous screening process to ensure that a company can provide both superior quality and competitive pricing. Suppliers who wish to do business with over 1,000 U.S. government agencies can use this schedule as a means to facilitate and streamline the procurement process.
"Inclusion on the GSA Schedule will strengthen our ability to provide mandated data-sharing capabilities to federal government agencies as the need for the secure and practical sharing of information has become critical. In addition, those agencies now receiving significant new funding to respond to those priorities will have a simple and accelerated process to access the Crossflo solutions," said Renney Senn, Crossflo's president. "We plan to expand our presence on the GSA schedule as we acquire additional technology to offer our customers in the federal government."
The GSA schedule is one of the most widely accepted government contract vehicles available to procurement officers. GSA schedule is a five-year contract listing the prices the federal government has agreed to pay for a vendor's commercial products and services. By pre-negotiating prices and providing impeccable references in advance, the supplier has cleared a significant portion of the hurdles that face vendors wishing to do business with government agencies. The contract may be renewed for three five-year periods resulting in a 20-year contract if all renewals are executed.
About Crossflo Systems, Inc.
Crossflo Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Patriot Scientific Corporation, provides innovative data exchange and information solutions to the justice and public safety sectors and the healthcare industry. Crossflo's flagship software product, the Crossflo DataExchange(R) (CDX) solution, is commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) middleware specifically designed for interagency and cross-domain data sharing using standards-based architecture and intuitive interface design. Crossflo's Iameter Medical Information Solution suite provides analysis of hospital data and insight tools to achieve increased quality and efficiency for the wider healthcare community. The Vigilys suite of products offers real-time visualization of resources for first responders in justice and public safety arenas, including fusion center emergency operations. Crossflo solutions are backed by operationally oriented professional services and expertise in HL7, NIEM, GJXDM, and IEPD deployments. For more information on Crossflo Systems, Inc., visit: www.crossflo.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: Angela Hartley
858-724-2216 ext. 223
SOURCE Crossflo Systems, Inc.