Thanks, Kidd.

So, if I read this correctly, this means that if the PDS agreement is terminated (which it would be, for all intents and purposes, were PTSC to gain control of the licensing activities), TPL has to give us their third party evaluations. Would Alliacense be considered a third party?

Also, it would be good to query PTSC directly as to who has been reviewing these materials on a quarterly basis (but of course, not copying them -- which means the person doing the reviewing would need to make some sort of notation as to which documents actually exist, in order to know that all docs subsequently produced in the event of termination of agreement are, indeed, all that exist). I trust PTSC has diligently inspected all documentation covered under this section of the agreement on a quarterly basis. And that someone on the BoD is responsible for overseeing same, and would therefore be willing to provide another advisory PR in this regard. In the name of full possible transparency, of course.

No attorney work gets shared with PTSC. I've read on this board statements about firms being willing to take on our activities on a contingency basis. However, absent any actual attorney work generated by TPL under the Commercialization agreement, that would mean starting from square one. Which, again, would take time and money.

Where is the money going to come from to commence legal enforcement/licensing of patents even if PTSC prevails on all counts and in all ways possible?