43

08.05.2024

Dear MPS Shareholder,

A quick update on some big new wins, exciting press coverage, and another patent milestone.

SafetySticks and Lot Updates
We just landed a monster deal — our first SafetySticks contract in New Mexico, starting strong with the biggest city in the state, Albuquerque. Yesterday we were officially informed they are moving forward on an contract. It will be between 500 and 1,000 SafetySticks.

On a related note, we also secured another parking lot in Albuquerque through our Premium partnership.

And the good news keeps rolling in: we’ve been awarded another major ski resort, Alta (near Salt Lake City), with installs beginning immediately. We’re also kicking off phase 2 deployments at two more ski resorts — Palisades and Kirkwood in Lake Tahoe.

Marketing
You may recall back in January, our SafetySticks were featured on the cover of Parking Today. I’m thrilled to share that MPS will be the feature story in their October issue. The piece highlights our patented microlot technology and the business we’ve built around “little baby parking lots.” I saw a draft today, and it’s hands-down the best story ever written about the power of our technology. I’ll circulate it as soon as it’s published.

Expanding Patent Portfolio
Our portfolio continues to grow: we now hold 53 issued patents worldwide (up from ~47 at year-end), with many more pending.

Just this month, two additional U.S. patents were granted:

• U.S. Patent #12,380,802 expands our on-street IP portfolio. It covers virtually any combination of external sensors (from in-ground magnetometers to roadway strips to advanced edge-detection vision) bundled with a payment device (meter or bollard) to reliably detect vehicles. In plain terms, it’s like giving our meters and SafetySticks “sight” — delivering automation, higher quality, productivity gains, and real AI/ML (machine learning) to the parking industry. This patent isn’t about violations per se, but about accurate vehicle presence detection for both parking revenue and safety use cases.

• U.S. Patent Application #9,075,436 protects our use of LPR cameras to monitor street segments, capturing vehicles entering and exiting, and leveraging that data to:
  • Verify authorization (loading zone, handicap, paid space, etc.)
  • Issue citations for unauthorized or overstayed vehicles
  • Notify tow/boot providers or law enforcement
  • Identify residents or special-permit holders
  • Integrate with kiosks or operate independently

Lawsuit Update
Many of you are following our ongoing case against PRRS and LAZ. Here’s a direct summary straight from the horse’s mouth (our attorneys):

• MPS has asserted that Defendants PRRS and LAZ directly infringe MPS’s asserted patents. Direct infringement does not require knowledge of the patents.

• MPS has also asserted pre-suit willful infringement and pre-suit indirect infringement. These Allegations both require pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.

• Defendants dispute that they had sufficient knowledge of the patents prior to suit to support MPS’s allegations of pre-suit willful infringement or pre-suit indirect infringement.

• Where par􏰀es have disputes about the sufficiency of the facts to support pre-suit willful infringement and pre-suit indirect infringement, the Court has a procedure that permits the plain􏰀ff to temporarily remove the willfulness and indirect infringement allegations from the complaint, take discovery on those issues, and then add those allegations back into the complaint a􏰁er taking discovery.

• According to the Court’s procedure, the deadline for adding the willful infringement and indirect infringement allegations back into the complaint is three months a􏰁er fact discovery begins. Fact discovery is scheduled to begin early in 2026.

• To be clear, the allegations of willful and indirect infringement will be added back into the complaint within three months of the start of fact discovery.

• By following the Court’s procedure, MPS will be able to force PRRS and LAZ to produce information in discovery about their pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.

• The Court’s procedure is more efficient for the Court and the par􏰀es. It avoids was􏰀ng the Court’s 􏰀me deciding early motions to dismiss before fact discovery has occurred. Simply stated, the Court’s procedure eliminates the possibility that it will need to decide the same motion to dismiss twice: once before discovery and a second 􏰀me a􏰁er discovery.

Closing
We are starting to feel the wind at our back and boy does it feel good. If you have any questions please call me.

Hold on to your hat!

Joe