This post by ronran may be a very important one for all PTSC
investors, especially those who didn't panic and sell today. It
appears as though the case (Quanta vs. LG) may not affect PTSC much if at all,
especially if TPL has been wording their contracts to reflect the
topic of double dipping and patent exhaustion. Excerpt from ronrans post;
"The entire scenario is based upon the concept of "patent
exhaustion",
> which, in simple terms, means that a patentee should not be able to
> get money from the "main infringer" (as above, usually a
manufacturer
> or designer), then do likewise from others (usually mere users),
> further down in the "food chain" — this is sometimes referred to
> as "double dipping". Thus, if it is made clear in the licensing
> agreement with the original manufacturer/designer that the money
> being paid is only for that manufacturer/designer, based solely on
> the extent of that company's potential infringement/liability, then
> there has been no "double dipping" in the first place, i.e, "patent
> exhaustion" never occurred.
>
> In our particular situation, it t appears to me, based on what
little
> we know, that TPL has been using this approach all along. I have
> seen other people post some of the language from TPL's website that
> has apparently been used by TPL to "warn" other alleged infringers
> that a license would still be required from them even though there
> has been a license obtained from an "upstream infringer" (that's my
> term, not TPL's), and this leads me to believe that TPL has been
> including such provisions in prior licensing/settlement deals.
> Knowing that this is one of the issues that the appellate courts
have
> been grappling with for years, and that is under current
> consideration in the Supreme Court, this is certainly what I would
> do, and I would thus expect no less from TPL, whose lawyers are much
> more experienced that am I in this field."
