Moore v TPL

TPL's threat is this: I've agreed not to interfere with the licensing program. And I certainly don't intend to.

Our agreement stipulates that disputes be resolved by Arbitration. But Leckrone claims that exercising that right would interfere. So I have no legal recourse? I don't think our justice system works that way.

So I'll try to defend my rights. And outline here some of the issues:

Royalty Payments

I'm not getting any.

Patent Ownership

TPL has falsely claimed ownership of MMP. A court document illustrates this.

'584 Reexam

Claim 29 is patentable as amended. MMP lives!

Commercialization Agreement

This is the Agreement I signed in 2003, when I was still young and naive. I would not sign such a thing now.

I am posting it to explain the references in those portions that Leckrone made public when he recorded them with USPTO. They are here and here as referenced elsewhere.

I had known Leckrone for 15 years. I thought he was my friend; that our interests were aligned; that I could trust both him and his judgement. I was wrong.

I'm not a lawyer, but this contract is bad. It's verbose, complicated, redundant and probably inconsistent. It doesn't say what it means or mean what it says. It requires adjudication, which is what a contract is supposed to avoid.

Annotated Commercialization Agreement

This is the ComAg annotated to indicate my understanding of it.

UCC-1 Form

UCC-1 is a document filed with California Secretary of State indicating my interest in the MMP portfolio. It merely insures that any interested party knows of this. This filing is explicitly allowed by the ComAg.