If PTSC and TPL were to divorce, so to speak, it would likely necessitate that TPL lose any and all claims to the MMP ownership. Since the court has already stipulated that TPL is at least partial owner of the patents (or something to that effect - biajj pointed that out), then they have a right to license the MMP as a patent owner, just as PTSC does.
However, if the TPL ownership claims can legally be disproved, then, regardless of any reverse engineering they might posess, they wouldn't be able to license the patents. Only Moore and PTSC would be, and either each could license them individually (and in competition with each other) or PTSC could partner with Moore in a true 50/50 partnership, or some other mutually agreeable arrangement that would allow licensing to procee forward.
That was my interpretation of Greg Bailey's post about the gravity of the current charges. I inferred from his posting that TPL has illegally (or potentially legally but not so "properly") usurped partial ownership of the MMP, and the battle will be to bring that to light, and to "correct" that or face the possibility of competing with TPL for licenses. Obviously, if the latter were to hold true, TPL will have an advantage over PTSC as they have the reverse engineering, and contractual language that prohibits PTSC for one year from licensing to those TPL already has in negotiations.
As I expect this was always a plan for the Leckrones, I think it's stupid to assume they are not ready for the battle both financially and strategically. That PTSC gave them an additional $2M with which to battle (though thankfully $1M turned out only to be an advance rather than a grant, since PTSC got it back with the June license receivable from PDS) certainly didn't hurt TPL operationally, though I would hope the court would ultimately frown on that and view it as a bad faith move.
Obviously, it seems based on the "settlement negotiations" that had been ongoing, PTSC was willing to continue with TPL in the picture. Whether they still are, remains to be seen. I assume they would still agree to a modification per the resolutions passed, and get back to licensing with TPL. However, it may be that they're willing to go to the mat and risk voiding the M.A. and potentially ending up in a situation whereby there are 3 legally recognized patent owners of the MMP, PTSC, Moore and TPL.
I'd welcome if Greg Bailey can provide any more insight as to what he thinks may be going on behind the scenes legally. If you are out there Greg, and feel you can shed any light on this, it would be appreciated by many I'm sure.
