Mosaic ImmunoEngineering Inc. - Annual Report: 2002 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002
or

For the transition period from _______________ to _______________

Commission File Number 0-22182

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code): (858) 674-5000

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act: NONE
Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

Common Stock, $.00001 par value
(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1 ) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X] NO [   ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ X ]

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on August 26, 2002 was $4,821,423 based on a closing bid price of $0.065 as reported on the OTC Electronic Bulletin Board system.

At August 26, 2002, 81,465,757 shares of common stock, par value $.00001 per share (the registrant’s only class of voting stock) were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

None

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including all documents incorporated by reference, includes “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and we desire to take advantage of the “safe harbor” provisions thereof. Therefore, we are including this statement for the express purpose of availing ourselves of the protections of such safe harbor with respect to all of such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this Report reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, including specifically the absence of significant revenues, a history of losses, no assurance that technology can be completed or that our completion will not be delayed, significant competition, the uncertainty of patent and proprietary rights, uncertainty as to royalty payments and indemnification risks, possible adverse effects of future sales of shares on the market, trading risks of low-priced stocks and those other risks and uncertainties discussed herein, that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated. In this report, the words “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “intends,” “future” and similar expressions identify certain of the forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements contained herein, which speak only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to publicly revise these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date hereof. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by this section.

PART I

Item 1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

The Company

     Patriot Scientific Corporation was organized under Delaware law on March 24, 1992, as the successor by merger to Patriot Financial Corporation, a Colorado corporation incorporated on June 10, 1987. Our address is 10989 Via Frontera, San Diego, California 92127, and our telephone number is (858) 674-5000. Our home page can be located on the World Wide Web at http://www.ptsc.com.

     We develop, market, and sell microprocessors, our technology behind the microprocessors, and complimentary products which enable computers and other data processing devices to communicate. These products can be used to connect to the Internet or other telecommunication networks. The microprocessor technology product line accounted for approximately 3% of our revenue in fiscal 2002. The balance of our 2002 revenue was generated from a communication product line that, subsequent to a completed last buy program, is generating minimal revenue. We also have a patent for special radar technology which, if fully developed, may allow a potential licensee to penetrate the ground or structures to find various objects. We also owned gas plasma antenna technology which we sold for $250,000 in August 1999. We potentially could receive up to an additional $250,000 from the sale of the gas plasma technology in the form of royalties. Our strategy is to exploit our microprocessor technologies through product sales, licensing, and strategic alliances.

3

Table of Contents

     In 1997, we emerged from the development stage primarily as a result of the acquisition of Metacomp Inc. There can be no assurance that we can achieve profitable operations, and we may need additional financial resources during the next twelve months.

Background

     In February 1989, we completed our initial public offering under a registration statement on Form S-18 under the Securities Act of 1933. This offering raised gross proceeds of $50,000 and net proceeds of approximately $28,640 upon the sale of 2,500,000 units at $.02 per unit. Each unit sold in the public offering consisted of one common share and one Class A common stock purchase warrant exercisable to acquire one share of common stock and one Class B common stock purchase warrant. All Class A and Class B warrants have since been exercised or have lapsed.

     On May 12, 1992, we redomiciled ourselves from Colorado to Delaware by merging into a wholly owned Delaware subsidiary, Patriot Scientific Corporation, organized for that purpose. The reincorporation resulted in a reverse stock split. Three shares of the Colorado corporation, par value $.00001, were converted into one share of the Delaware corporation, par value $.00001. The reincorporation also effected a change in our charter and bylaws and a name change to Patriot Scientific Corporation.

     In May 1993, we registered under the Securities Act of 1933 a total of 7,631,606 shares issuable upon the exercise of outstanding Class A and Class B common stock purchase warrants. We received net proceeds of $3,343,915 upon the exercise of those warrants and the issuance of 7,538,102 common shares. None of such warrants remain outstanding.

     Effective May 31, 1994, we entered into an asset purchase agreement and plan of reorganization with nanoTronics Corporation located in Eagle Point, Oregon and Helmut Falk. We issued a total of 8,500,000 restricted common shares to nanoTronics to acquire certain microprocessor technology of nanoTronics. The technology acquired was used to develop a sophisticated yet low cost microprocessor. 5,000,000 of the shares were issued on a non-contingent basis, and the remaining 3,500,000 shares were issued subject to the terms of an earnout escrow arrangement, which concluded on May 31, 1999.

     Effective December 26, 1996, we acquired 96.9% of the outstanding shares of Metacomp, Inc., a California corporation, from 56 shareholders in exchange for the issuance of 1,272,068 shares of our common stock. Based on the closing price of our common stock of $1.375 on the date of the acquisition, the price of the acquisition was $1,749,094. This business combination was accounted for as a pooling-of-interests.

Business

     Organization and Corporate Development. Our business involves the following technologies:

     The stages of development of our technologies is as follows:

4

Table of Contents

     Due to our small size and staffing overlaps among the technologies, certain personnel may work on any or all of our technologies from time to time.

     During at least the last three years, we have focused the majority of our efforts on the Ignite and high-speed data communications technologies. The Ignite technology is targeted for the embedded controller and Java language processor marketplaces.

     Internet Growth and the Emergence of the Java Programming Language. The Internet is a global web of computer networks. This “network of networks” allows computers connected to the Internet to “talk” to one another. The Internet provides organizations and individuals with new means to conduct business. Commercial uses of the Internet include business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions, product marketing, advertising, entertainment, electronic publishing, electronic services and customer support. We believe that organizations will also increasingly use the Internet and private Intranet networks to improve communications, distribute information, lower operating costs and change operations. Use of the Internet has grown rapidly impacting computer hardware, software and peripheral industries. The rapid growth in popularity of the Internet is in part due to continuing penetration of computers and modems into U.S. households, growth of the informational, entertainment and commercial applications and resources of the Internet, the growing awareness of such resources among individuals, and the increasing availability of user-friendly navigational and utility tools which enable easier access to the Internet’s resources.

     The growth of the Internet and corporate Intranets is creating a demand for hardware, software and peripherals. Software, such as Java, has been developed to serve the requirements of Internet users.

     Java is a programming language that was originally developed for personal digital assistant devices and television set top boxes. It was formally announced as an object-oriented language for the Internet in May 1995 by Sun Microsystems Inc. A large number of major computer, software, browser and on-line service provider companies have licensed the Java language. Accordingly, Java is a fundamental platform for Internet related applications. A significant number of Java applications, or applets, are now available on the Internet. These applications not only enhance web pages but also perform many functions of traditional computer software programs. Our Ignite technology lends itself to potential markets in which the use of Java is prevalent.

     With Java, data and programs do not have to be stored on the user’s computer, but can reside anywhere on the Internet to be called upon as needed. Among its various attributes, two key features of Java are (1) its ability to run on a variety of computer operating systems thus avoiding the problem of incompatibility across networks, and (2) security, because Java enables the construction of virus-resistant, tamper-resistant systems by using resource-access control and public-key encryption. Because of Java’s useful features, it has also become a popular programming language for embedded applications.

5

Table of Contents

     Since Java is designed to run on multiple types of devices and operating systems, it allows developers to write a program once for many types of operating systems, instead of having to write new versions for each type. Java does this by interpreting a program’s commands into something that a particular type of computer can understand. This interpretive design runs programs slower than if they were tailored for each type of computer and is resulting in a need for specialized microprocessors and compilers to increase Java’s speed.

     The growth of Java is causing a number of companies to consider it as a basis for a new style of computing tailored to the Internet and not encumbered by the limitations of, or requiring, traditional computer operating systems. The concept is to design inexpensive access devices to communicate via the Internet.

Our Microprocessor Technology.

     General Background. In 1991, nanoTronics Corporation was formed and acquired a base technology for an advanced microprocessor integrated on a single computer chip. nanoTronics subsequently engaged in substantial technical development and fabricated a first-generation microprocessor in early 1994.

     Since the acquisition of the technology from nanoTronics, effective May 31, 1994, we have been engaged in enhancing the microprocessor design, adding additional technical features to further modernize the design, and improving and testing the new design. We initially fabricated a prototype 0.8-micron microprocessor in May 1996. The next generation was a 0.5-micron microprocessor that was delivered in September 1997. The 0.5-micron microprocessor was employed in demonstrations for prospective customers and was shipped in limited numbers to customers as an embedded microprocessor. In 1998 we introduced a 0.35-micron microprocessor whose features included a reduction in size and improved performance. In addition, in September 2000 we completed a VHDL model of this technology which enables customers to purchase intellectual property incorporating microprocessor functions with other parties’ applications to arrive at a system on a chip solution. By purchasing this software model, customers can significantly reduce their time to market by simulating results as opposed to trial and error commitment to silicon production. We are currently working on a 0.18-micron enhancement of silicon production for our Ignite microprocessor technology.

     Industry Background. The semiconductor logic market has three major sectors:

     Standard logic products, such as the Intel’s X86 and Pentium and Motorola’s 680X0 microprocessor families, are neither application nor customer specific. They are intended to be utilized by a large group of systems designers for a broad range of applications. Because they are designed to be used in a broad array of applications, they may not be cost effective for specific applications. Application specific integrated circuits are designed to meet the specific application of one customer. While cost effective for that application, application specific integrated circuits require large sales volumes of that application to recover their development costs. Application specific standard processors are developed for one or more applications but are not generally proprietary to one customer. Examples of these applications include modems, cellular telephones, wireless communications, multimedia applications, facsimile machines and local area networks. We have designed our microprocessor to be combined with application specific software to serve as an embedded control product for the application specific standard processor market sector.

     Application specific standard processors are typically used in embedded control systems by manufacturers to provide an integrated solution for application specific control requirements. Such systems usually contain a microprocessor or microcontroller, logic circuitry, memory and input/output circuitry. Electronic system manufacturers combine one or more of these elements to fit a specific application. The microprocessor provides the intelligence to control the system. The logic circuitry provides functions specific to the end application. The input/output circuitry may also be application specific or an industry standard component. The memory element, if not on the microprocessor, is usually a standard product used to store program instructions and data. In the past, these functions have been executed through multiple integrated circuits assembled on a printed circuit board. The requirements for reduced cost and improved system performance have created market opportunities for semiconductor suppliers to integrate some or all of these elements into a single application specific standard processor or chip set, such as the Ignite family of

6

Table of Contents

microprocessors. The Ignite family provides close integration of the microprocessor and input/output function with the logic circuitry, thereby providing an advanced application specific standard processor.

     Embedded control systems enable manufacturers to differentiate their products, replace less efficient electromechanical control devices, add product functionality and reduce product costs. In addition, embedded control systems facilitate the emergence of completely new classes of products. Embedded control systems have been incorporated into thousands of products and subassemblies worldwide, including automotive systems, remote controls, appliances, portable computers and devices, cordless and cellular telephones, motor controls and many other systems.

     Microprocessors are generally available in 4-bit through 64-bit architectures, which refers to the amount of data they can process. 4-bit microprocessors are relatively inexpensive, typically less than $1.00 each. Although they lack certain performance and features, they account for more than 40% of worldwide microcontroller volume. Also in general use today are 8-bit architectures, generally costing $1.00 to $10.00 each and accounting for an additional 40% of worldwide microcontroller volume. To date 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, with typical costs of over $10.00 each, have offered very high performance, but are generally considered to be expensive for high-volume embedded control applications. The use of 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit architectures offers fewer internal limitations, making programming easier and providing higher performance. Although generally more expensive per unit and requiring more support logic and memory, these devices offer many advantages for more sophisticated embedded control systems.

     Electronic system designers, driven by competitive market forces, seek semiconductor products with more intelligence, functionality and control that can be used to reduce system costs and improve performance. For these needs, the Ignite product family was designed to be a sophisticated 32-bit microprocessor with advanced features. The Ignite product family uses a smaller number of transistors compared to other RISC processors which results in less power consumption and more economical prices compared to other embedded control applications. This creates the opportunity for the development of new, cost-effective applications.

     Technology Description. Conventional high-performance microprocessors are register-based with large register sets. These registers are directly addressable storage locations requiring a complex architecture that consumes costly silicon. This conventional architecture provides processing power for computer applications but complicates and slows the execution of individual instructions and increases silicon size, thereby increasing the microprocessor cost.

     Our technology is fundamentally different from most other microprocessors in that the data is stored in groups. Our microprocessor employs certain features of both register and stack designs. The resultant merged stack-register architecture improves program execution for a wide range of embedded applications. Our design combines two processors in one highly integrated package, a microprocessing unit for performing conventional processing tasks, and an input-output processor for performing input-output functions. This replaces many dedicated peripheral functions supplied with other processors. The microprocessor’s design simplifies the manipulation of data. Our architecture employs instructions that are shrunk from 32-bits to 8-bits. This simplified instruction scheme improves execution speed for computer instructions. Our architecture incorporates many on-chip system functions, thus eliminating the requirement of support microprocessors and reducing system cost to users.

     The 0.8-micron microprocessor was designed to operate at a speed of 50Mhz; the 0.5-micron microprocessor at a speed of 100Mhz; the 0.35-micron microprocessor at 150MHz; and the 0.18-micron to operate at speeds in excess of 300Mhz. They are all compatible with a wide range of memory technology from low cost dynamic random access memory to high-speed static random access memory. The microprocessors can be packaged in various surface-mount and die-form packaging. There can be no assurance that the designed speed will be achieved with production models of the 0.5 or 0.18-micron microprocessors or future versions or that all of the desired functions will perform as anticipated.

     Our technology is not designed or targeted to compete with high-end processors for use in personal computers. It is targeted for embedded control applications. We believe that the features described above differentiate the Ignite family from other 8-bit to 64-bit microprocessors targeted for embedded control applications. Considering the reduced requirement for support microprocessors, the Ignite family is intended to be available at a high volume price that should be price competitive with high-end 8-bit microprocessor and general 16-bit microprocessor systems but with higher performance (speed and functional capability). The Ignite family has been designed to allow high-speed and high-yield fabrication using generally available wafer fabrication technology and facilities.

7

Table of Contents

     The Ignite Microprocessor as a Java Processor. We believe the Ignite microprocessor architecture is capable of being an efficient and cost effective Java programming language processor, because Java is designed to run on a stack-oriented architecture and the Ignite architecture executes the virtual stack machine internal to Java efficiently. Many Java operation codes or instructions require only a single 8-bit Ignite family instruction to be executed, providing a performance advantage over other more expensive processors that require six or more 32-bit instructions to do the same task. This feature allows the execution of Java programs with increased speed and reduced code size thereby enabling lower system memory costs. In addition, the incorporation of many on-chip system functions is expected to allow the Ignite family to perform most of the other functions required of an Internet computer device or Java accelerator, thereby eliminating components. Since Internet computers are designed to be inexpensive appliances for Internet access, cost, speed and performance are expected to be key requirements for designers. We believe the Ignite technology can compete favorably on the basis of such requirements, although there can be no assurance we can successfully exploit Java related applications or that competitors will not create superior Java processors.

     We have ported the Java operating environment to the Ignite family, which currently uses the C programming language for software support. We are a licensee of Sun Microsystems Inc. This enables us to develop and distribute products based on Sun’s personalJava, a platform on which to run Java applications. We have also licensed from Wind River an operating system, VxWorks, and entered into a relationship with Forth Inc. whereby Forth will provide software support and operating system development tools for the Forth Programming language. We expect that successful implementation of this software should result in a microprocessor which is competitive in the Java virtual machine and embedded applications markets. We believe that, if the implementation is successfully completed, the Ignite I family will be competitive with Java microprocessors announced by competitors. However, there can be no assurance of successful implementation of this package of software or of a market for an Ignite family Java microprocessor.

     Stage of Development. In early 1994, nanoTronics initiated production of a first generation of wafers at a contract fabrication facility using 6 inch wafers employing 0.8-micron double-metal CMOS technology. After the May 31, 1994 acquisition, we improved the original design, added new features and performed simulations and tests of the improved designs. In October 1995, a run of six wafers of second generation 0.8-micron microprocessors was fabricated by a contract fabrication facility. Subsequently, we tested these microprocessors, while completing a C computer language compiler and preparing application development tools. The compiler and application development tools are necessary to enable system designers to program the Ignite family for specific applications. We made corrections to the design suggested by the testing of prototype units and produced an additional run of second generation microprocessors from remaining wafers in May 1996. In July 1996, we employed these microprocessors in demonstration boards for use by developers and prospective customers and licensees.

     In December 1997, we completed development of and started shipping a 0.5-micron microprocessor based on the Ignite technology and found that 0.5-micron double-metal CMOS technology improved operating speed, reduced power requirements, reduced physical size and reduced fabrication cost. In May 1998, we began a production run of a 0.35-micron microprocessor that further increased operating speed and cost performance over the previous generations of the Ignite family of microprocessors.

     At each stage of development, microprocessors require extensive testing to ascertain performance limitations and the extent and nature of errors (bugs), if any. When significant limitations or errors are discovered, additional rounds of design modifications and fabrication are required prior to having functional and demonstrable microprocessors for prospective customers and licensees. Although our 0.5 and 0.35-micron microprocessors have been sent to prospective customers in anticipation of production orders, there can be no assurance that we, during our continued testing of these products, will not identify errors requiring additional rounds of design and fabrication prior to commercial production. Additional delays could have an adverse effect on the marketability of our technology and financial condition.

     In September 2000, we completed the VHDL soft-core version of the Ignite microprocessor family. The hardware design inside a microprocessor, or silicon device, can be represented as a software program. This, in essence, replaces the old style of designing microprocessors using schematics. VHDL is the predominant software language used to design semiconductors. In addition to the design aspects, VHDL also contains sophisticated simulation tools that allow the designer to simulate the functionality of the entire design before committing to silicon. Also VHDL enables a designer to easily modify and enhance the design. A design represented in VHDL goes through a synthesis process

8

Table of Contents

whereby it is converted to the most basic element of a design, logical gates. This gate level representation in turn is used with computer aided engineering tools to translate the design into the most fundamental component of semiconductors, transistors. The characteristics of the transistors can be given as a library to a foundry. Therefore, a design represented in VHDL is technology and foundry independent and can be targeted for any given transistor geometry (such as 0.18, 0.25, or 0.35- micron) for any foundry of choice.

     We have developed marketing materials, product manuals and application development tools for use by licensees and customers. The manuals and tools are necessary to enable system designers to quickly and easily program the Ignite family for specific applications.

     We believe that the Ignite family is ready for licensing or sale and that any additional changes encountered in current testing will be minor and can be made during subsequent production runs of Ignite family microprocessors for customers, when and if orders are obtained. We also believe the core technology is ready for licensing for use by others to develop custom multiple function microprocessors.

     Business Strategy. The increasing demand for embedded control has made the market for microprocessors one of the largest segments of the semiconductor logic market. This demand will drive the need for embedded processors. Our strategy does not entail competing directly with suppliers who have multiple microprocessor types addressing all parts of the embedded systems market, but on identifying certain market niches that the Ignite would best address due to its low cost, low power consumption and small number of transistors.

     Because of the above factors, we intend to focus the majority of our efforts on the embedded microprocessor business, a market without an established base of microprocessor products and for which we believe the Ignite has desirable technical and market advantages.

     We believe that our architecture is suited for controller applications requiring high performance and low system cost, such as cell phones, printers, video terminals, robotics, motion controllers, industrial controllers, digital communication devices, video games, kiosks, cable and satellite modems and TV set top boxes. We expect that early licensing of the technology and product applications will focus on embedded control.

     We have three international distributors for foreign markets and are addressing the domestic market with an in-house business development person. We also have a strategic alliance with an outside microprocessor design house.

     We believe the appropriate approach for us initially lies in a balanced effort of cultivating licensees and developing specific product enhancement partnerships, producing original equipment manufactured products, and providing technical support to third parties on a contract basis. The overall balance of these approaches will be monitored and modified as we attempt to ascertain and capitalize on the highly dynamic and competitive embedded microprocessor market. There can be no assurance that we can successfully exploit our microprocessor technology.

     Subject to the availability of financial and personnel resources, while we are commercializing the Ignite family and the core technology, our strategy is to also design and develop future versions of the microprocessor with more demanding sub-micron technology and with more features. However, our resources are limited, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue microprocessor enhancement.

     Initial fabrications of the 0.8-micron and 0.5-micron processors were performed by contract fabrication facilities. The 0.35-micron microprocessor was fabricated by a contract fabrication facility that had agreed to provide production quantities for our customers. We are currently working with a contract fabrication facility and our design house partner to produce a 0.18-micron version of the Ignite. There can be no assurance fabrication facilities will be available to produce the Ignite family in the future. However, since there are a large number of fabrication facilities with the capability to produce the Ignite family of microprocessors, we believe microprocessors can be produced on a contract basis. Industry shortages of fabrication facilities that may exist and are predicted to exist in the future are generally limited to the more demanding architectures. If a shortage of fabrication facilities develops, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

     Competition. The semiconductor industry is intensely competitive and has been characterized by price erosion, rapid technological change and foreign competition in many markets. The industry consists of major domestic and

9

Table of Contents

international semiconductor companies, most of which have greater financial, technical, marketing, distribution, development and other resources than ours. The market for microprocessors and for embedded control applications is at least as competitive.

     While our strategy is to target high-volume licensees and microprocessor customers requiring more sophisticated but low-cost, low-power consumption devices, we can still expect significant competition. We may also elect to develop embedded control system products utilizing our own architecture or by contract for other manufacturers.

     We expect that the Ignite family, if successfully commercialized in the embedded controller market, will compete with a variety of 16/64-bit microprocessors including those based on intellectual property from ARM and MIPS and microprocessors from Hitachi, Motorola and IBM. As a Java processor, we expect our Ignite family will compete with a broad range of microprocessors including those incorporating co-processor accelerator technology. The producers of these microprocessors have significantly greater resources than ours.

     A new entrant, such as ours, is at a competitive disadvantage compared to these and other established producers. A number of factors contribute to this, including:

     JUICEtechnology

     General Background. During 2001 we introduced a technology to enhance the users experience of the wireless internet by expanding the capabilities of his device (either a cell phone, PDA, smart phone or pocket PC). By varying the speed at which the microprocessor processes information, the device can present information in a richer format than is available from current technologies and, additionally, doing so with less drain on the device’s battery.

     Industry Background. The wireless industry currently provides voice and text data over airwaves ranging from 8Kbps to 19.6Kbps in North America. Voice transmissions account for the majority of wireless use, however at these band widths data content providers are limited to the type of product they are able to transmit and display on a user’s device. In addition, users are now familiar with the internet content they receive on their desk top and lap top computers provided by land lines and, therefore, may not be overly enthusiastic about inferior products provided by the wireless internet. Eventually the band width is expected to increase to over 2Mbits. When this happens, content providers will be able to transmit information to a user’s device in a way similar to existing land lines thereby meeting the user’s current expectations. These enhanced transmissions may include items such as video streaming, video mail, mobile television, video conferencing and video on demand just to name a few. In North America we are still several years away from this solution. Currently only 4% of wireless users are internet connected. Significant funds will need to be expended to procure band width and provide the infrastructure to meet the demands of next generation wireless applications. In the meantime, device manufacturers, wireless data network providers and content providers continue to attempt to attract a larger number of wireless internet subscribers with existing technology. Several areas which are having a dampening effect on attracting internet subscribers are the mobile wireless device’s small screen size and limited battery power, the user’s difficulty in interacting when using small keypads or number pads, and the network carrier’s transmission of text only or limited graphics.

     Technology Description. JUICEtechnology provides a solution for text only and limited graphics content and limited battery power. Juice allows interaction between the microprocessor contained in the user’s device and the data being transmitted by the content provider. When the content is such that increased processor speed is required to provide a better display, as would be the case in expanded graphics, the microprocessor simply increases its functioning speed. Conversely, if the content is such that the microprocessor can effectively process the content at a lower speed, then the processor slows down, thereby, conserving energy. This combination provides for both expanded battery life for the user’s device and for a richer wireless internet experience for the user.

10

Table of Contents

     Stage of Development. The engineering is complete for JUICEtechnology, however, we are awaiting significant customer interest before we commit to the development of a working model available for demonstrations and commercialization.

     Business Strategy. To launch JUICEtechnology we will need the support of a major manufacturer, wireless service provider or content supplier who can introduce the product as a defacto standard.

     Competition. Although we are not aware of any other solutions which condition data in the manner that JUICEtechnology does, there are a variety of companies that are attempting to vary the speed at which a microprocessor processes data including Intel, Hitachi, Transmeta and AMD. Some of our existing and potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing and distribution resources than we do. Additionally, many of these companies have greater name recognition and more established relationships with our target customers. Furthermore, these competitors may be able to adopt more aggressive pricing policies and offer customers more attractive terms than we can.

     High Speed Data Communications Products.

     The communication products that reached the end of their life cycles are:

     Except for minor repeat orders, we no longer are supporting this product line. Our strategy is to sell this product line so we may concentrate our efforts and resources on Ignite and JUICEtechnology.

     Radar and Antenna Technology.

     General Background. We commenced active development of our ground penetrating radar technology in April 1992. By May 1993, we were able to demonstrate the sensing, processing and crude visualization of images from our technology, and by May 1994 we had completed our prototype device. Since May 1994, we have focused our efforts and limited financial resources on the microprocessor technology and communication products, effectively suspending development and marketing efforts related to ground penetrating radar.

     Gas Antenna Technology Description.

     We sold our gas plasma technology in August 1999.

     Research and Development. Our current development efforts are focused on improvement of and additional features for the Ignite family microprocessor and developing the JUICEtechnology. The development of these technologies has taken longer than anticipated and could be subject to additional delays. Therefore, there can be no assurance of timely or successful marketing of these technologies.

     We incurred research and development expenditures of $1,372,421, $2,218,433 and $3,170,166 for our fiscal years ended May 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000. The majority of these expenditures have been devoted to our microprocessor technology. We believe that technical advances are essential to our success and expect that we will continue to expend substantial funds on research and development of our technology. However, there can be no assurance that such research and development efforts will result in the design and development of a competitive technology in a timely manner.

     Licenses, Patents, Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Rights. We rely on a combination of patents, copyright and trademark laws, trade secrets, software security measures, license agreements and nondisclosure

11

Table of Contents

agreements to protect our proprietary technologies. Our policy is to seek the issuance of patents that we consider important to our business to protect inventions and technology that support our microprocessor technology.

     We have six U.S. patents issued dating back to 1989 on the microprocessor technology. We have one microprocessor technology patent pending in five European countries and one patent issued in Japan and may file additional applications under international treaties depending on an evaluation of the costs and anticipated benefits that may be obtained by expanding possible patent coverage. In addition, we have one U.S. patent issued on the ground penetrating radar technology and one U.S. patent issued on one of the communications products. We also have three patents pending related to several other development programs including JUICEtechnology.

     In addition to such factors as innovation, technological expertise and experienced personnel, we believe that a strong patent position is becoming increasingly important to compete effectively in the semiconductor industry. It may become necessary or desirable in the future for us to obtain patent and technology licenses from other companies relating to certain technology that may be employed in future products or processes. To date, we have not received notices of claimed infringement of patents based on our existing processes or products; but, due to the nature of the industry, we may receive such claims in the future. Likewise, we believe that we may have claims against other semiconductor companies should certain of our pending patents be favorably granted. However, there can be no assurance thereof or any assurance that we could successfully exploit any potential patent claims against larger competitors.

     Based on the asset purchase agreement and plan of reorganization between Patriot, nanoTronics and Mr. Falk, we were the recipients of a number of warranties and indemnities. We believe nanoTronics has been liquidated and, due to Mr. Falk’s death in July 1995, we may be limited in our ability to obtain satisfaction should we have any future claims against nanoTronics or its successor, the Falk Family Estate.

     We have entered into the following licenses related to the microprocessor technology:

     We had one U.S. patent on our gas plasma antenna technology that was sold in August 1999.

     We have one U.S. patent on our ground penetrating radar technology. No foreign application has been made. There are a large number of patents owned by others in the radar field generally and in the field of ground penetrating radar specifically. Accordingly, although we are not aware of any possible infringement and have not received any notices of claimed infringement, we may receive such claims in the future.

12

Table of Contents

     There can be no assurance that any patents will be issued from pending or future applications or that any patents that are issued will provide meaningful protection or other commercial advantages to us. Although we intend to protect our rights vigorously, there can be no assurance that these measures will be successful.

     We generally require all of our employees and consultants, including our management, to sign a non-disclosure and invention assignment agreement upon employment with us.

     Marketing and Distribution. Our products are marketed through a combination of direct sales and distributors. Approximate sales by principal geographic area (as a percentage of sales) for fiscal years ended May 31 were as follows:

     All of our operating assets are located within the United States. While sales to certain geographic areas generally vary from year to year, we do not expect that changes in the geographic composition of sales will have a material adverse effect on operations.

     Dependence upon Single Customers. Ten percent (10%) or more of our consolidated net sales were derived from shipments to the following customers for the fiscal years ended May 31as follows:

     All of the above sales were for communication products and were shipped against multiple purchase orders from each customer.

     We had no backlog as of July 31, 2002 compared to less than $10,000 as of July 31, 2001. The backlog as of July 31, 2001 was for the final orders related to the communication products and were shipped by the end of our second fiscal quarter which ended November 30, 2001.

     Employees. We currently have nine personnel. Four persons are employed in research and development, two in marketing and sales and three are engaged in general and administrative activities. We also engage additional consultants and part-time persons as needed from time to time.

     Our future success depends in significant part upon the continued service of our key technical and senior management personnel. The competition for highly qualified personnel is intense, and there can be no assurance that we

13

Table of Contents

will be able to retain our key managerial and technical employees or that we will be able to attract and retain additional highly qualified technical and managerial personnel in the future. None of our employees is represented by a labor union, and we consider our relations with our employees to be good. None of our employees is covered by key man life insurance policies.

     Government Regulation. To our knowledge, our products are not subject to governmental regulation by any federal, state or local agencies that would affect the manufacture, sale or use of our products, other than occupational health and safety laws and labor laws which are generally applicable to most companies. We cannot, of course, predict what sort of regulations of this type may be imposed in the future but do not anticipate any unusual difficulties in complying with governmental regulations which may be adopted in the future.

     We have not incurred costs associated with environmental laws and do not anticipate such laws will have any significant effect on our future business.

Item 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

     We have one 10,300 square foot office located at 10989 Via Frontera, San Diego, California. The facility is leased through July 2006. In July 2002, we sublet approximately 5,000 square feet of our facility to an independent third party. The term of the sublease coincides with the remaining term of our lease. The reduced floor space provides adequate and suitable facilities for all of our corporate functions. In addition, we have one employee, who supports the sales and marketing of our microprocessor, telecommute from her home in West Virginia.

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

     In January 1999, we were sued in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California by the Fish Family Trust, a co-inventor of the original ShBoom technology. The suit also named as defendants nanoTronics and Gloria Felcyn on behalf of the Falk Family Trust. The suit sought a judgment for damages, a rescission of the Technology Transfer Agreement and a restoration of the technology to the co-inventor. In March 1999, we joined with nanoTronics and Gloria Felcyn and filed our response and cross-complaint against the Fish Family Trust. In November 2000, the judge issued a summary ruling in favor of the defendants on all counts. The Fish Family Trust filed an appeal in January 2001. Management believes that it is unlikely that the appellate court will overturn the trial court’s ruling and that the resolution of the appeal process will have no impact on our financial position, income or cash flows.

     In September 2001, an action was filed against us in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California by Richard G. Blum, our former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Blum contends that he was wrongfully terminated on August 5, 2001 in violation of his employment agreement dated December 1, 2000. He seeks damages for the alleged breach of his employment agreement, age discrimination, as well as other related claims. Management denies Mr. Blum’s claims and contends it exercised its business judgment for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. In accordance with his employment agreement, we may be obligated to pay him between $0 and $400,000 as severance pay. We intend to vigorously defend our position in this case.

     In October 2001, an action was filed against us in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California by Daniel Beach, a former marketing and sales consultant whose contract we terminated in August 2001. Mr. Beach contends that we breached both a written and an oral contract, that we did not perform on certain promises, and that we made false and misleading representations in addition to other claims. In July 2002, we entered into negotiations on a settlement agreement with Mr. Beach. Management believes that it is probable that a settlement will be reached whereby we agree to pay him $50,000 over five months. Accordingly, a liability for $50,000 has been recorded in the financial statements as of May 31, 2002, in connection with this litigation.

14

Table of Contents

Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

     At a Special Meeting of Shareholders held on May 6, 2002, the following proposal was approved:

PART II

Item 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

     Our Common Stock is traded in the over-the-counter market and is quoted on the NASD OTC Bulletin Board system maintained by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Prices reported represent prices between dealers, do not include markups, markdowns or commissions and do not necessarily represent actual transactions. The market for our shares has been sporadic and at times very limited.

     The following table sets forth the high and low closing bid quotations for the Common Stock for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2002 and 2001.

     We have approximately 416 shareholders of record as of May 31, 2002. Because most of our common stock is held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of stockholders represented by these record holders. We have never paid a cash dividend on our common stock and do not expect to pay one in the foreseeable future.

Item 6. SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

     You should read the selected consolidated financial data set forth below in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and the notes to those statements included elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated financial data set forth below for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998 have been derived from our consolidated financial statements which have been audited by Nation Smith Hermes Diamond, independent auditors, for the year ended May 31, 2002 and BDO Seidman, LLP, independent auditors, for the preceding four years.

15

Table of Contents

Item 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

     Our Results of Operations have been and may continue to be subject to significant variations. The results for a particular period may vary due to a number of factors. These include:

16

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies

     We believe that the following represent our critical accounting policies:

Property, Equipment and Depreciation

     Property and equipment are stated at cost. Depreciation is computed over the estimated useful life of three to five years using the straight-line method. Long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangibles to be held and used by the Company are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. We continuously evaluate the recoverability of our long-lived assets based on estimated future cash flows from and the estimated fair value of such long-lived assets, and provide for impairment if such undiscounted cash flows are insufficient to recover the carrying amount of the long-lived asset.

Patents and Trademarks

     Patents and trademarks are carried at cost less accumulated amortization and are amortized over their estimated useful lives of four years. The carrying value of patents and trademarks is periodically reviewed and impairments, if any, are recognized when the expected future benefit to be derived from an individual intangible asset is less than its carrying value.

Revenue Recognition

     We recognize revenue on the shipment to our customers of communication products, microprocessor integrated chips and evaluation boards. We anticipate that in the future we will also derive revenue from fees for the transfer of proven and reusable intellectual property components or the performance of engineering services. We anticipate to enter into licensing agreements that will provide licensees the right to incorporate our intellectual property components in their products with terms and conditions that we anticipate to vary by licensee. Generally, we anticipate these payments will include a nonrefundable technology license fee, which will be payable upon the transfer of intellectual property, or a nonrefundable engineering service fee, which generally will be payable upon achievement of defined milestones. In addition, we anticipate these agreements will include royalty payments, which will be payable upon sale of a licensee’s product, and maintenance and limited support fees. We will classify all revenue that involves the future sale of a licensee’s products as royalty revenue. Royalty revenue will be generally recognized in the quarter in which a report is received from a licensee detailing the shipments of products incorporating our intellectual property components (i.e., in the quarter following the sale of licensed product by the licensee). We will classify all revenue that does not involve the future sale of a licensee’s products, primarily license fees and engineering service fees and maintenance and support fees, as contract revenue. License fees will be recognized upon the execution of the license agreement and transfer of intellectual property, provided no further significant performance obligations exist and collectibility is deemed probable. Fees related to engineering services contracts, which will be performed on a best efforts basis and for which we will receive periodic milestone payments, will be recognized as revenue over the estimated development period, using a cost-based percentage of completion method. Annual maintenance and support fees, which will be renewable by the licensee, will be classified as contract revenue and will be amortized over the period of support, generally 12 months.

Research and Development Costs

     Research and development costs are expensed as incurred.

Stock Options

     The Company applies Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related Interpretations in accounting for all stock option plans. Under APB Opinion 25, compensation cost has been recognized for stock options granted to employees when the option price is less than the market price of the underlying common stock on the date of grant.

     Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” requires the Company to provide pro forma information regarding net income as if compensation cost for the Company’s stock option plans had been determined in accordance with the fair value based method prescribed in SFAS No. 123. To provide the required pro forma information, the Company estimates the fair value of each stock option at the grant date by using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model.

17

Table of Contents

Use of Estimates

     The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. During the year ended May 31, 2002, based upon information then available, we revised our estimates regarding the recovery of our inventories. As a result, we increased existing reserves for obsolescence by $111,381.

Results of Operations for the Years Ended May 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000

     Our net sales in fiscal 2002, 2001 and 2000 were as follows:

     Net sales. Total net sales for the year ended May 31, 2002 increased slightly over the previous year as a result of our last buy program for the communications products all of which have reached the end of their life cycles. Net sales for the year ended May 31, 2001 decreased from the previous fiscal year. This decrease was due to a lack of follow-on shipments for the matured communication products. We have stopped production of our communications products as we are now concentrating on the microprocessor product line. We anticipate only minor, if any, communication product revenue since we are attempting to sell this line. Future sales will be derived from sales of microprocessors and licensing of microprocessor technology.

     Our cost of sales in fiscal 2002, 2001 and 2000 were as follows:

     Cost of sales. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales decreased in the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002 compared to the previous fiscal year. This decrease was due to a reduction in fixed manufacturing overhead as a result of cost cutting programs instituted in conjunction with the completion of the communication product line during the current fiscal year. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales increased in the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001 compared to the previous fiscal year. This increase was due to fixed manufacturing overhead being allocated to a smaller revenue base during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001 and a $138,000 reduction in royalties during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001 compared to the previous fiscal year negatively impacting the percentage comparison.

     Our research and development expenses in fiscal 2002, 2001 and 2000 were as follows:

     Research and development expenses decreased during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002 compared to the previous fiscal year. This decrease was due primarily to a reduction of approximately $406,000 in personnel costs, a $221, 000 reduction in the costs of outside consultants and a reduction in software maintenance costs of $77,000. These reductions in costs were as a result of a cost cutting program initiated during the first half of the current fiscal year.

18

Table of Contents

Research and development expenses decreased during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001 compared to the previous fiscal year. This decrease was due primarily to non-cash compensation expense of $1,588,960 being recorded the previous fiscal year as a result of the Company providing employees and directors the option of exercising their stock options using a cashless exercise provision compared to no similar expense in the current fiscal year. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in personnel costs of approximately $300,000 and consulting services of $150,000. The increase in personnel and consulting costs was attributable to the introduction of the new soft core version of the microprocessor technology and to accelerate the effort to complete and improve the marketability of the Ignite I and JUICEtechnology. We added four research and development personnel, including one executive, during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001.

     Our selling, general and administrative expenses in fiscal 2002, 2001 and 2000 were as follows:

     Selling, general and administrative expenses increased during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002. This increase was due primarily to approximately $294,000 of legal, accounting and shareholder costs associated with several registrations of securities and two shareholder meetings, non-cash compensation of $105,000 related to services provided to support our merger and acquisition activities, offset by reductions in consulting expenses of $286,000. Selling, general and administrative expenses decreased during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001, compared to the previous fiscal year. This decrease was due primarily to non-cash compensation expense of approximately $2,150,000 being recorded during the previous fiscal year as a result of the Company providing employees and directors the option of exercising their stock options using a cashless exercise provision compared to no similar expense in the current fiscal year. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in marketing, employment and consulting costs of approximately $1,174,000. This increase was due to increased marketing expenses related to Ignite I and JUICEtechnology and additional compensation and relocation costs related to changes in several executive level positions. We added six selling, general and administrative personnel, including two executives, during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001.

     Our other income (expenses) in fiscal 2002, 2001 and 2000 were as follows:

     Other income (expense) changed significantly for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002 compared to the previous fiscal year. This change resulted primarily from the recognition of non-cash interest expense of approximately $1,324,000 related to the amortization of the debt discount associated with the issuance of warrants under the secured note payable, convertible debentures, and equity line of credit and interest expense related to the excess of the market price over the carrying value of the common shares sold to Swartz for which the proceeds were applied to the note payable balance. Other income (expenses) changed significantly for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001, compared to the previous fiscal year. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001, other income was recognized primarily from interest income as opposed to the previous fiscal year when other expense resulted primarily from the recognition of approximately $996,000 of non-cash interest expense related to the amortization of debt discount and $51,000 increase in interest expense over 2001 related to short term notes. The 2000 expenses were partially offset by a gain of $250,000 on the sale of the gas plasma antenna technology.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

     In connection with their report on our consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended May 31, 2002, Nation Smith Hermes Diamond, our independent certified public accountants, expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern because of recurring net losses and negative cash flow from operations.

19

Table of Contents

     At May 31, 2002, we had deficit working capital of $918,768 and cash and cash equivalents of $88,108. We have historically funded our operations primarily through the issuance of securities and debt financings. Cash and cash equivalents decreased $376,242 during the year ended May 31, 2002 due to net cash used in operations of $3,632,534 and additions to property, equipment and patents, net of $146,156 offset by funds generated primarily from the proceeds from a note payable and convertible debenture of $2,298,000 and the sale of common stock under an investment agreement and to individual investors of $953,438. The net cash used in operations was $3,632,534 for the year ended May 31, 2002 compared to $4,839,180 for the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year. The decrease in cash required in operations was due primarily to a $436,837 difference in net loss as adjusted to reconcile to cash used in operating activities coupled with a $1,324,431 non-cash interest expense related to convertible debentures, notes payable and warrants and $326,189 difference in the cash generated and sales of inventory between the two periods. Cash used in investing activities was $146,156 for the year ended May 31, 2002 compared to $493,557 for the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year. This decrease in cash required for investing activities was due primarily to a note receivable for $80,000 coupled with corporate office remodeling costs incurred during the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year. Cash provided by financing activities was $3,402,448 for the year ended May 31, 2002 compared to $3,696,845 for the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year. This decrease was primarily the result of a smaller need for cash as a result of cost cutting programs during the current fiscal period.

     We estimate our current cash requirements to sustain our operations for the next twelve months through May 2003 to be $2.4 million. Since we are attempting to sell the communications product line, we are assuming that there will be no communications product revenue. We have a note payable to Swartz of $635,276 at May 31, 2002 which is due in October 2002. We also have a convertible debenture with one investor as of May 31, 2002 of $225,000 and have received advances against additional convertible dentures of $283,000. In addition to limitations based on trading volume and market price of the common stock, our ability to obtain equity financing under the $25 million equity line of credit (see Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements) is dependent on our having registered shares of our common stock to sell to Swartz Private Equity, LLC (“Swartz”). As of May 31, 2002, we do not have any registered shares to sell to Swartz. Subsequent to May 31, 2002, we completed the first funding of the convertible debentures by receiving an additional $492,000. At the option of the debenture holders, they may purchase additional debentures up to $1 million at any time during the next two years as long as the price of our common stock is in excess of $0.20 per share.

     The terms of the $25 million equity line of credit, including limitations on the amount of shares that can be sold to Swartz based on the trading volume and market price of the common stock and the potential additional amounts that may be raised under the convertible debentures may not provide funds sufficient to meet our cash requirements. In order to meet our cash requirements, we may need to receive additional advances from Swartz, secure short-term debt, private placement debt and/or equity financings with individual or institutional investors. In addition to the cost reduction plan implemented during the current fiscal year, including the reduction in personnel, we may need to make additional cost reductions if our cash requirements cannot be met from external sources. We expect that the $2.4 million requirement will be provided by:

In addition, we have formulated additional cost reduction plans which can be implemented if the required funds are not obtainable. We also have remaining a $400,000 accounts receivable factoring agreement with our bank; however, we have no eligible accounts receivable to factor as of May 31, 2002.

20

Table of Contents

     We anticipate our future revenue to be derived primarily from the sale of licenses and royalties. To receive this revenue, we may require additional equipment, fabrication, components and supplies during the next twelve months to support potential customer requirements and further develop our technologies. Product introductions such as those currently underway for the Ignite I and JUICEtechnology may require significant product launch, marketing personnel and other expenditures that cannot be currently estimated. Further, if expanded development is commenced or new generations of microprocessor technology are accelerated beyond current plans, additional expenditures we cannot currently estimate, may be required. It is possible therefore, that higher levels of expenditures may be required than we currently contemplate resulting from changes in development plans or as required to support new developments or commercialization activities or otherwise.

     Based on our current plan and assumptions, we anticipate that we will be able to meet our cash requirements for the next twelve months. We anticipate meeting our cash needs as follows:

     As shown above, we need to obtain $3,035,276. Any additional funding under the existing $25 million equity line of credit is dependent on many factors. However, there can be no assurance that any funds required during the next twelve months or thereafter can be generated from sales of common stock under the existing $25 million equity line of credit or that we will be able to secure additional debt or equity financing. The lack of additional capital could force us to substantially curtail or cease operations and would, therefore, have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, there can be no assurance that we will be able to timely receive shareholder approval to increase the number of authorized shares or that required funds, if available, will be available on attractive terms or that they will not have a significantly dilutive effect on our existing shareholders. As such, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from our possible inability to continue as a going concern.

     $25 Million Equity Line of Credit

     Overview. On September 17, 2001, we entered into an investment agreement with Swartz. The investment agreement entitles us to issue and sell our common stock to Swartz for up to an aggregate of $25 million from time to time during a three-year period following the effective date of the registration statement. This is also referred to as a put right. We filed a registration statement on Form S-1 on October 11, 2001 that was declared effective on November 5,

21

Table of Contents

2001 for 15,000,000 shares of our common stock which we issued to Swartz during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002. There remains approximately $24 million available under this line conditioned on us filing one or more additional registration statements. As of August 1, 2002, we have not filed a statement requesting the registration of additional shares to put to Swartz under the $25 million equity line of credit.

     Put Rights. In order to invoke a put right, we must have an effective registration statement on file with the SEC registering the resale of the common shares which may be issued as a consequence of the invocation of that put right. Additionally, we must give at least ten but not more than twenty business days advance notice to Swartz of the date on which we intend to exercise a particular put right, and we must indicate the number of shares of common stock we intend to sell to Swartz. At our option, we may also designate a maximum dollar amount of common stock (not to exceed $3 million) which we will sell to Swartz during the put and/or a minimum purchase price per common share at which Swartz may purchase shares during the put. The number of common shares sold to Swartz may not exceed 20% of the aggregate daily reported trading volume during each of two consecutive ten business day periods beginning on the business day immediately following the day we invoked the put right.

     The price Swartz will pay for each share of common stock sold in a put is equal to the lesser of (i) the market price for each of the two consecutive ten business day periods beginning on the business day immediately following the day we invoked the put right minus $0.10, or (ii) X percent of the market price for each of the two ten day periods, where, X is equal to 90% if the market price is below $2.00 and 93% if market price is equal to or greater than $2.00. Market price is defined as the lowest closing bid price for the common stock during each of the two consecutive ten business day periods. However, the purchase price may not be less than the designated minimum per share price, if any, that we indicated in our notice.

     We issued to Swartz a commitment warrant to purchase up to 900,000 shares of our common stock concurrent with the execution of the investment agreement. This warrant is exercisable through September 17, 2006 at an initial exercise price of $0.22. The commitment warrant exercise price is subject to being reset on each six month anniversary of its issuance.

     Limitations and Conditions Precedent to Our Put Rights. We may not initiate a put if, as of the proposed date of such put:

     If any of the following events occur during the pricing period for a put, the volume accrual shall cease. For the put, the pricing period shall be adjusted to end 10 business days after the date that we notify Swartz of the event, and any minimum price per share we specified shall not apply to the put:

22

Table of Contents

     Short Sales. Swartz and its affiliates are prohibited from engaging in short sales of our common stock unless they have received a put notice and the amount of shares involved in a short sale does not exceed the number of shares specified in the put notice.

     Shareholder Approval. We may currently issue more than 20% of our outstanding shares under the investment agreement. If we become listed on the Nasdaq Small Cap Market or Nasdaq National Market, then we must get shareholder approval to issue more than 20% of our outstanding shares. Since we are currently a bulletin board company, we do not need shareholder approval.

     Termination of Investment Agreement. We may also terminate our right to initiate further puts or terminate the investment agreement by providing Swartz with notice of such intention to terminate; however, any such termination will not affect any other rights or obligations we have concerning the investment agreement or any related agreement.

     Restrictive Covenants. During the term of the investment agreement and for a period of two months thereafter, we are prohibited from certain transactions. These include the issuance of any debt or equity securities in a private transaction which are convertible or exercisable into shares of common stock at a price based on the trading price of the common stock at any time after the initial issuance of such securities or with a fixed conversion or exercise price subject to adjustment without obtaining Swartz’s prior written approval.

     Right of First Refusal. Swartz has a right of first refusal to purchase any variable priced securities offered by us in any private transaction which closes on or prior to two months after the termination of the investment agreement and a right of participation for any equity securities offered by us in any private transaction which closes on or prior to two months after the termination of the investment agreement.

     Swartz’s Right of Indemnification. We are obligated to indemnify Swartz (including their stockholders, officers, directors, employees and agents) from all liability and losses resulting from any misrepresentations or breaches we made in connection with the investment agreement, our registration rights agreement, other related agreements, or the registration statement.

     Waiver and Agreement. On March 12, 2002, we entered into an amended waiver and agreement with Swartz which replaced and superseded all previous waivers and agreements. This amended waiver and agreement extended the time of the put beyond twenty days and redefined the price of the put to be the lesser of the factor of (a) the volume weighted average price per share, as defined by Bloomberg L.P., for each day of the put multiplied by .70 or (b) the volume weighted average price per share minus $0.05 multiplied by 20% of the acceptable daily volume as defined in the waiver. At the discretion of Swartz, the 20% daily volume limitation could be increased up to 30% of the daily volume. In addition, the amended waiver and agreement increased the intended put share amount for the first put to 14,100,000 shares, which is the total number of shares we had registered so far under the $25 million equity line of credit. On May 30, 2002 we closed the first put under the $25 million equity line of credit by applying the proceeds of $926,924 to the secured note payable discussed below.

     Warrants. In connection with closing the $25 million equity line of credit, we issued to Swartz a commitment warrant to purchase 900,000 shares of our common stock as discussed further in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements. This warrant was valued on the issuance date using the Black-Scholes pricing model and the value was recorded as a debt discount.

Secured Note Payable

     On March 12, 2002, we replaced and superceded a previously issued Secured Promissory Note with Swartz with an Amended Secured Promissory Note and Agreement with an effective date of October 9, 2001 and an Addendum to Amended Secured Promissory Note dated March 12, 2002. The amended note matures on October 9, 2002 and amounts outstanding under the note bear interest at the rate of 5% per annum. Upon mutual agreement between Swartz

23

Table of Contents

and ourselves, Swartz may advance additional amounts under the amended note. Per the addendum to the amended note, principal and interest payments are deferred until October 9, 2002.

     As part of the consideration for entering into the above amended note, we agreed to issue warrants to Swartz related to each advance against the note. In connection with each advance, we issued to Swartz a warrant to purchase a number of shares of common stock equal to the amount of the advance multiplied by 8.25 at an initial exercise price equal to the lesser of (a) the factor of the average of the volume weighted average price per share, as defined by Bloomberg L.P., for each trading day in the period beginning on the date of the previous advance and ending on the trading day immediately preceding the date of the current advance multiplied by .70 or (b) the volume weighted average price per share minus $0.05. In addition, if after March 12, 2002, we issue common stock to any parties other than Swartz, we are obligated to issue to Swartz warrants equal to 20% of the common stock so issued. The amended note also gives to Swartz the right of first refusal and rights to participate in subsequent debt or equity transactions entered into by us through March 15, 2003.

     As of May 31, 2002 we issued warrants to purchase up to 12,188,150 shares of our common stock in accordance with the amended note agreement. The warrants issued were valued using the Black-Scholes pricing model based on the expected fair value at issuance and the estimated fair value was also recorded as debt discount. See Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements for discussion of the terms of the warrants

     The note is secured by our assets.

     All debt discounts are to be amortized as additional interest expense over the projected term of the note payable. As of May 31, 2002, $1,107,238 has been reflected as debt discount of which $917,722 was amortized to interest expense during the year ended May 31, 2002.

     On November 9, 2001, an offset of $227,800 from the sale of 2,500,000 shares of common stock was applied against the final put under the $30 million equity line of credit discussed below. The excess of the market value of the underlying 2,500,000 shares of common stock over the principal reduction of $227,800 was recorded as additional interest expense of $197,250 during the year ended May 31, 2002.

     On May 30, 2002, an offset of $926,924 from the sale of 14,100,000 shares of common stock was applied against the first put under the $25 million equity line of credit discussed below. The excess of the market value of the underlying 14,100,000 shares of common stock over the principal reduction of $926,924 was recorded as additional interest expense of $201,076 during the year ended May 31, 2002.

8% Convertible Debentures

     Overview. From April 23, 2002 through June 10, 2002, we sold an aggregate of $1,000,000 of 8% convertible debentures to a group of six investors. The initial funding of $225,000 was completed on April 23, 2002 and we received additional advances of $283,000 as of May 31, 2002 towards the $775,000 closing on June 10, 2002. The convertible debentures entitle the debenture holder to convert the principal and unpaid accrued interest into our common stock through June 10, 2004. In addition, the debenture holder received warrants exercisable into a number of our common shares.

     Initial Number of Shares Debentures May Be Converted Into. The $225,000 debenture can be converted into a number of our common shares at a conversion price that initially equals $0.10289 per share and the $775,000 debenture can be converted into a number of our common shares at a conversion price that initially equals $0.086 per share.

24

Table of Contents

     Resets of Conversion Price and Conversion Shares. A reset date occurs on each three month anniversary of the closing date of each debenture and on the date the registration statement filed in June 2002 becomes effective. If the volume weighted average price for our common stock for the ten days previous to the reset date is less than the conversion price in effect at the time of the reset date, then the number of common shares issuable to the selling shareholder on conversion will be increased. If the conversion price is reset, the debenture can be converted into a number of our common shares based on the following calculation: the amount of the debenture plus any unpaid accrued interest divided by the reset conversion price which shall equal the volume weighted average price for our common stock for the ten days previous to the reset date.

     Warrants. Concurrent with the issuance of the convertible debentures, we issued to the debenture holders warrants to purchase up to 12,859,175 shares of our common stock. These warrants are exercisable for five years from the date of issuance at initial exercise prices equal to 115% of the volume weighted average price for our common stock for the ten days previous to the debenture date. The warrant exercise price is subject to being reset on each six month anniversary of its issuance.

     Options to Purchase Additional Debentures. Subject to the price of our common stock being equal to or greater than $0.20 per share and a two year limitation, the debenture holders may purchase additional debentures equal to the value of their initial debentures. The price at which the optional additional debentures could be converted would initially equal 115% of the volume weighted average price for our common stock for the ten days previous to the date on which the optional additional debentures were closed. The optional additional debentures would carry the same warrant amounts and reset privileges as the initial debentures.

     Shareholder Approval. We may currently issue more than 20% of our outstanding shares under the convertible debentures. If we become listed on the NASDAQ Small Cap Market or Nasdaq National Market, then we must get shareholder approval to issue more than 20% of our outstanding shares. Since we are currently a bulletin board company, we do not need shareholder approval.

     Restrictive Covenants. For a period of 18 months from the date of the debentures, we are prohibited from certain transactions. These include the issuance of any debt or equity securities in a private transaction which are convertible or exercisable into shares of common stock at a price based on the trading price of the common stock at any time after the initial issuance of such securities; the issuance of any debt or equity securities with a fixed conversion or exercise price subject to adjustment; and any private equity line type agreements without obtaining the debenture holders’ prior written approval.

     Right of First Refusal. The debenture holders have a right of first refusal to purchase or participate in any equity securities offered by us in any private transaction which closes on or prior to the date that is two years after the issue date of each debenture.

     As of May 31, 2002 we issued warrants to purchase up to 2,514,809 shares of our common stock in accordance with the convertible debenture. The warrants issued were valued using the Black-Scholes pricing model based on the expected fair value at issuance and the estimated fair value was also recorded as debt discount. See Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements for discussion of the terms of the warrants.

     All debt discounts are to be amortized as additional interest expense over the projected term of the convertible debenture. As of May 31, 2002, $201,185 has been reflected as debt discount of which $8,383 was amortized to interest expense during the year ended May 31, 2002.

     The convertible debenture is secured by our assets.

25

Table of Contents

New Accounting Pronouncements

     In June 1998, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” amended by SFAS No. 137, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities- Deferral of the Effective Date of FASB No. 133,” and SFAS No. 138, “Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities” which requires companies to record derivatives on the balance sheet as assets or liabilities, measured at fair market value. Gains or losses resulting from changes in the values of those derivatives would be accounted for depending on the use of the derivative and whether it qualifies for hedge accounting. The key criterion for hedge accounting is that the hedging relationship must be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows. SFAS No. 133 was effective for us on June 1, 2001. The adoption of this statement had no material impact on our financial statements.

     In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141, “Business Combinations” and SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”. SFAS No. 141 requires the use of the purchase method of accounting and prohibits the use of the pooling-of-interests method of accounting for business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001. SFAS No. 141 also requires that companies recognize acquired intangible assets apart from goodwill if the acquired intangible assets meet certain criteria. SFAS No. 141 applies to all business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 and for purchase business combinations completed on or after July 1, 2001. It also requires, upon adoption of SFAS No. 142, that companies reclassify the carrying amounts of intangible assets and goodwill based on the criteria in SFAS No. 141.

     SFAS No. 142 requires, among other things, that companies no longer amortize goodwill, but instead test goodwill for impairment at least annually. In addition, SFAS No. 142 requires that companies identify reporting units for the purposes of assessing potential future impairments of goodwill, reassess the useful lives of other existing recognized intangible assets, and cease amortization of intangible assets with an indefinite useful life. An intangible asset with an indefinite useful life should be tested for impairment in accordance with the guidance in SFAS No. 142. SFAS No.142 is required to be applied in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001 to all goodwill and other intangible assets recognized at that date, regardless of when those assets were initially recognized. SFAS No. 142 requires companies to complete a transitional goodwill impairment test six months from the date of adoption. Companies are also required to reassess the useful lives of other intangible assets within the first interim quarter after adoption of SFAS No. 142. Upon the adoption of this statement no material impact on our financial statements is expected.

     Our previous business combinations were accounted for using the pooling-of-interests method. The pooling-of-interests method does not result in the recognition of acquired goodwill or other intangible assets. As a result, the adoption of SFAS No. 141 and No. 142 will not affect the results of past acquisition transactions. However, all future business combinations will be accounted for under the purchase method, which may result in the recognition of goodwill and other intangible assets, some of which will be recognized through operations, either by amortization or impairment charges, in the future. We will be required to reassess the useful lives of our intangible assets within the first fiscal quarter of 2003.

     In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” SFAS No. 143 requires the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation to be recognized in the period in which it is incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The associated asset retirement costs are capitalized as part of the carrying amount of the long-lived asset. SFAS No. 143 is effective for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2003. Upon adoption of this statement no material impact on our financial statements is expected.

26

Table of Contents

     In August 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” SFAS No. 144 requires that those long-lived assets be measured at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell, whether reported in continuing operations or in discontinued operations. Therefore, discontinued operations will no longer be measured at net realizable value or include amounts for operating losses that have not yet occurred. SFAS No. 144 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001 and, generally, is to be applied prospectively. The adoption of this statement may impact the presentation of information in our future financial statements.

     In April 2002, FASB issued SFAS No. 145, Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections. This statement eliminates the current requirement that gains and losses on debt extinguishment must be classified as extraordinary items in the income statement. Instead, such gains and losses will be classified as extraordinary items only if they are deemed to be unusual and infrequent, in accordance with the current GAAP criteria for extraordinary classification. In addition, SFAS 145 eliminates an inconsistency in lease accounting by requiring that modifications of capital leases that result in reclassification as operating leases be accounted for consistent with sale-leaseback accounting rules. The statement also contains other nonsubstantive corrections to authoritative accounting literature. The changes related to the debt extinguishment will be effective for fiscal years beginning after May 15, 2002. Adoption of this standard will not have any effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

     In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, which addresses accounting for restructuring and similar costs. SFAS No. 146 supersedes previous accounting guidance, principally Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 94-3. The Company will adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 146 for restructuring activities initiated after December 31, 2002. SFAS No. 146 requires that the liability for costs associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. Under EITF No. 94-3, a liability for an exit cost was recognized at the date of a company’s commitment to an exit plan. SFAS No. 146 also establishes that the liability should initially be measured and recorded at fair value. Accordingly, SFAS No. 146 may affect the timing of recognizing future restructuring costs as well as the amount recognized. Adoption of this standard will not have any effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Tax Loss Carryforwards

     As of May 31, 2002, we had approximately $28,972,000 of tax loss carryforwards. A valuation allowance has been recorded for the net-deferred tax asset of $13,446,000 arising primarily from tax loss carryforwards because we cannot determine that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax asset will be realized. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Item 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK

     We are exposed to interest rate risk on investments of our excess cash. The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve capital. To achieve this objective and minimize the exposure due to adverse shifts in interest rates, we invest from time to time in high quality short-term maturity commercial paper and money market funds operated by reputable financial institutions in the United States. Due to the nature of our investments, we believe that we do not have a material interest rate exposure.

     As of May 31, 2002, our notes payable to corporations and individuals totaling $1.1 million bore interest at fixed rates of 5% to 8%. Our capital lease obligation totaling $21,847 is discounted at a fixed rate of interest of 22.7%.

Item 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.

     The following table presents selected unaudited quarterly information for fiscal 2002 and 2001

27

Table of Contents

     Also see Part IV, Item 14(a).

     The financial statements required by this item begin on page F-1 with the index to consolidated financial statements.

Item 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

     Effective May 20, 2002, the client-auditor relationship between Patriot Scientific Corporation (the “Company”) and BDO Seidman, LLP (“BDO”) ceased. The Company dismissed BDO on May 20, 2002 as part of its cost reduction program which was initiated earlier in this fiscal year.

     The change in certifying accountants was approved by the Company’s board of directors.

     BDO’s reports on the consolidated financial statements of the Company for each of the past two years did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, or was qualified as to any uncertainty in audit scope or accounting principle; however the audit opinion of BDO on the Company’s most recent consolidated financial statements as of and for the period ending May 31, 2001 was modified to include an explanatory paragraph which contained a statement that the Company’s recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows raised substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

     During the two years ended May 31, 2001 and the subsequent interim periods preceding the date of the dismissal of BDO on May 20, 2002, there were no disagreements with BDO on any matters of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreement(s), if not resolved to the satisfaction of BDO, would have caused the former accountant to make a reference to the subject matter of the disagreement(s) in connection with its reports covering such periods.

     During the two years ended May 31, 2001 and the subsequent interim periods preceding the date of the dismissal of BDO on May 20, 2002, there were no “reportable events” (hereinafter defined) requiring disclosure pursuant to Item 304 (a) (1) (v) of Regulation S-K. As used herein, the term “reportable events” means any of the items listed in paragraphs (a) (1) (v) (A) — (D) of Item 304 of Regulation S-K.

     Effective May 20, 2002, the Company engaged Nation Smith Hermes Diamond, a professional corporation, which is a member of the BDO Seidman Alliance (“Nation”) , as its independent accountants. During the two years ended May 31, 2001 and the subsequent interim periods preceding the effective date of the engagement of May 20,

28

Table of Contents

2002, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted Nation regarding either the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, nor has Nation provided to the Company a written report or oral advice regarding such principles or audit opinion.

     The Company requested that BDO furnish it with a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether or not it agrees with the above statements. A copy of the letter from BDO dated June 4, 2002 was filed as Exhibit 16.1 to the Form 8-K/A filed June 5, 2002.

PART III

Item 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

     The following table and biographical summaries set forth information, including principal occupation and business experience, about our directors and the executive officers at August 1, 2002:

Biographical Information

     Donald R. Bernier. Mr. Bernier was appointed Chairman of the Board on August 5, 2001. Since 1971, Mr. Bernier has been the owner and President of Compunetics Incorporated, a Troy, Michigan-based electronics firm of which he is the founder. Compunetics engages in contract research and development, specializing in microelectronics primarily for the automotive industry.

     David H. Pohl. Mr. Pohl has served on our board of directors since April 2001, and served as an officer of the Company from January 2001 to March 2002. Except for his service with PTSC, Mr. Pohl has been in the private practice of law counseling business clients since 1997, and from 1995 to 1996 was Special Counsel to the Ohio Attorney General. Previously, he was a senior attorney with a large U.S. law firm, and held positions as a senior officer and general counsel in large financial services corporations. Mr. Pohl earned a J.D. degree in 1962 from the Ohio State University College of Law, and also holds a BS in Administrative Sciences from Ohio State.

     Jeffrey E. Wallin. Mr. Wallin has served as our Chief Executive Officer and President since March 2002. Since 1999, Mr. Wallin was president of SDMC Inc., a consulting company serving the multimedia system integration and communications markets. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Wallin was President and CEO of TV/COM International, a division of Hyundai that developed and manufactured end-to-end digital communications systems. Previously Mr. Wallin held senior level management positions with Snell & Wilcox, General Instrument, now a major division of Motorola, and Teledyne Corporation. Mr. Wallin obtained a B.S. degree from Bemidji State University in 1970.

     Lowell W. Giffhorn. Mr. Giffhorn was the principal in his own financial management consulting firm from August 1996 until joining Patriot as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in May 1997. Mr. Giffhorn has served on our board of directors since August 1999. From June 1992 to August 1996 and from September 1987 to June 1990 he was the CFO of Sym-Tek Systems, Inc. and Vice President of Finance for its successor, Sym-Tek Inc., a major supplier of capital equipment to the semiconductor industry. Mr. Giffhorn obtained a M.B.A. degree from National University in 1975 and he obtained a B.S. in Accountancy from the University of Illinois in 1969.

29

Table of Contents

     Carlton M. Johnson, Jr. Mr. Johnson was appointed a Director on August 5, 2001. Mr. Johnson is in-house legal counsel for Swartz Investments, LLC, a position he has held since June 1996. Mr. Johnson has practiced law in Alabama since 1986, Florida since 1988, and Georgia since 1997. He has been a shareholder in the Pensacola, Florida AV rated law firm of Smith, Sauer, DeMaria & Johnson and as President-Elect of the 500 member Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association. He also served on the Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division Board of Governors. Mr. Johnson earned a degree in History/Political Science at Auburn University and Juris Doctor at Samford University — Cumberland School of Law.

     Helmut Falk, Jr. Since 1992, Dr. Falk has been the Director of Anesthesia for the Johnson Memorial Hospital in Franklin, Indiana. Dr. Falk received his D.O. from the College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific in 1987 and his B.S. in Biology from the University of California, Irvine in 1983. Dr. Falk is the son of the late Helmut Falk, who was the sole shareholder of nanoTronics and the Chairman and CEO of Patriot until his death in July 1995. Dr. Falk is also an heir to the Helmut Falk Estate, which is the beneficial owner of the Company’s shares held by the Helmut Falk Family Trust.

     Patrick O. Nunally. Dr. Nunally joined us as Vice President of Business Development and Chief Technical Officer in June 2001, previous to which he had been providing consulting services to us since May 2000. Dr. Nunally has more than 20 years of entrepreneurial experience in semiconductor and embedded processor design. From December 1998 to May 2000, he was President and CEO of Intertech, a company he founded specializing in intellectual property development for embedded processor and communications systems. From June 1998 to December 1998, he was President and CEO of Gruppe Telekom, Inc., a licensee of Interactive Video and Data Service Spectrum. From April 1996 to June 1998, he served as Chief Technical Officer and co-founder of Aristo, now PlayNet Inc., a Java-based games company. Dr. Nunally also held other senior management positions with Wave Interactive Network, Sensormatic Video Products Division, Intellisys Automation Inc., E-Metrics Inc., General Dynamics Corporation and Interstate Electronics. Dr. Nunally received his PhD in Electrical Engineering from the Pacific Western University in 1996, a MBA from the University of LaVerne in 1993 and a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from California State Polytechnic University in 1987.

     Joey Maitra. Mr. Maitra was Vice President of Engineering for Metacomp since 1990 and was appointed Vice President of Engineering of Patriot in December 1996 through February 2001. Mr. Maitra was reappointed to the same position in November 2001. Previously Mr. Maitra held various engineering positions with several computer related technology companies. Mr. Maitra obtained a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology in 1972 and a M.S. in Electrical Sciences at State University of New York in 1973.

     There is no family relationship between any of our executive officers.

Compliance With Section 16(a) Of The Exchange Act

     Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, executive officers and persons who beneficially own 10% or more of a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act to file reports of beneficial ownership and changes in beneficial ownership with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Directors, executive officers and greater than 10% shareholders are required by the rules and regulations of the Commission to furnish us with copies of all reports filed by them in compliance with Section 16(a).

     Based solely on our review of copies of the reports we received from persons required to make such filings and our own records, we believe that from the period June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002, all persons subject to the Section 16(a) reporting requirements timely filed the required reports.

Item 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

     There is shown below information concerning the compensation of our chief executive officers and the most highly compensated executive officers whose salary and bonus exceeded $100,000 (each a “Named Officer”) for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000.

30

Table of Contents

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

     The Company maintains employee benefits that are generally available to all of its employees, including medical, dental and life insurance benefits and a 401(k) retirement savings plan. The Company did not make any matching contributions under the 401(k) plan for any of the above named officers during the fiscal years ended May 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.

Option Grants

31

Table of Contents

     Shown below is information on grants of stock options pursuant to the Company’s 1992, 1996 and 2001 Stock Option Plans to the Named Officers reflected in the Summary Compensation Table shown above.

Option Grants Table for Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2002

Aggregated Option Exercises and Fiscal Year-End Option Values

     There were no exercises of stock options for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002 by any of the officers reflected in the Summary Compensation Table shown above. Shown below is information on fiscal year-end values under the Company’s 1992, 1996 and 2001 Stock Option Plans to the officers reflected in the Summary Compensation Table shown above.

     The fair market value of the unexercised in-the-money options at May 31, 2002 was determined by subtracting the option exercise price from the last sale price as reported on the over the counter bulletin board on May 31, 2002, $0.08.

32

Table of Contents

     The Company has not awarded stock appreciation rights to any of its employees. The Company has no long-term incentive plans.

Compensation of Directors

     No direct or indirect remuneration has been paid or is payable by us to the directors in their capacity as directors other than the granting of stock options. We expect that, during the next twelve months, we will not pay any direct or indirect remuneration to any directors of ours in their capacity as directors other than in the form of stock option grants or the reimbursement of expenses of attending directors’ or committee meetings.

Employment Contracts

     The Company entered into a consulting agreement dated as of March 7, 2002, with SDMC, Inc. whereby SDMC would provide the services of Mr. Wallin to be the President and Chief Executive Officer. The agreement is for a term through March 18, 2004 providing for payments of $133,200 per annum. The agreement provides for a bonus up to 50% of the annual base consideration for the applicable year. The agreement also provides for potential bonuses to be paid based on the increase in the price of the Company’s common stock. Should the price of the common stock reach $0.25 for twenty consecutive days, SDMC would receive a cash payment of $10,000, $0.40- $20,000, $0.50- $20,000, $0.60- $30,000, $0.80- $30,000, $1.00- $50,000, $1.50- $100,000, and $2.00- $150,000. The Company may terminate SDMC’s agreement with or without cause, but termination without cause (other than disability or death) would result in severance payments equal to the lesser of (i) four months of the then current compensation or (ii) the balance remaining of the current compensation for the term of his agreement. If a change in control, as defined in the agreement, occurs during the term of his agreement, and if Mr. Wallin refuses to accept or voluntarily resigns from a position other than a qualified position, as that term is defined in the agreement, then SDMC will receive a lump sum severance payment equal to twelve months of the then current compensation. Under the agreement, the Company granted SDMC options to purchase 1,000,000 common shares, 500,000 vesting on March 7, 2002, 250,000 vesting on March 7, 2003 and 250,000 vesting on March 7, 2004. The Company also placed in escrow four months of payments which shall be released to SDMC on the termination of Mr. Wallin’s services for any reason other than cause or his resignation.

     The Company entered into an employment agreement dated as of November 17, 2001, with Mr. Giffhorn providing for his employment as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The agreement is for a term through September 4, 2004 providing for a base salary of $144,000 per annum. The base salary may be increased at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The agreement provides for a bonus up to 50% of the annual base salary for the applicable year. The agreement also provides Mr. Giffhorn a monthly car allowance of $400. The Company may terminate Mr.Giffhorn’s employment with or without cause, but termination without cause (other than disability or death) would result in severance payments equal to the lesser of (i) four months of the then current base salary or (ii) the balance remaining of the current base salary for the term of his agreement. If a change in control, as defined in the agreement, occurs during the term of his agreement, and if Mr. Giffhorn refuses to accept or voluntarily resigns from a position other than a qualified position, as that term is defined in the agreement, then he will receive a lump sum severance payment equal to twelve months of his then current salary.

     The Company entered into an employment agreement dated as of December 20, 2001, with Mr. Maitra providing for his employment as Vice President of Engineering. The agreement is for a term through January 2, 2003 providing for a base salary initially of $120,000 per annum which was increased to $126,000 in April 2002. The base salary may be increased at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The agreement provides for a bonus up to 50% of the annual base salary for the applicable year. The agreement also provides Mr. Maitra a monthly car allowance of $400. The Company may terminate Mr.Maitra’s employment with or without cause, but termination without cause (other than disability or death) would result in severance payments equal to the lesser of (i) four months of the then current base salary or (ii) the balance remaining of the current base salary for the term of his agreement. If a change in control, as defined in the agreement, occurs during the term of his agreement, and if Mr. Maitra refuses to accept or voluntarily resigns from a position other than a qualified position, as that term is defined in the agreement, then he will receive a lump sum severance payment equal to twelve months of his then current salary. Under the agreement, the Company granted Mr. Maitra options to purchase 335,000 common shares, 185,000 vesting on January 2, 2002 and 150,000 vesting on January 2, 2003.

33

Table of Contents

     The Company entered into a letter of intent dated May 31, 2001 with Dr. Nunally providing for his employment as the Chief Technical Officer of the Company. The terms of the letter provide for a base salary of $180,000 per annum. The letter provides for a bonus up to 50% of the annual base consideration for the applicable year. In addition, the letter provides for monthly payments of $4,500 for the purchase from Dr. Nunally of certain intellectual property assets and assignment of worldwide patent rights. On March 30, 2001, the Company entered into an agreement with Dr. Nunally providing for additional monthly payments of $3,000 for additional intellectual property assets.

     Mr. Giffhorn was an executive officer and a member of the compensation committee during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2001. Subsequent to May 31, 2001, the entire Board of Directors has served as the compensation committee. Any actions effecting Mr. Giffhorn’s compensation or stock option grants during the period of time he served on the compensation committee were approved by the entire Board of Directors.

Item 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

     The following table sets forth, as of August 23, 2002, the stock ownership of each officer and director of the Company, of all officers and directors of the Company as a group, and of each person known by the Company to be a beneficial owner of 5% or more of its Common Stock. Except as otherwise noted, each person listed below is the sole beneficial owner of the shares and has sole investment and voting power over such shares. No person listed below has any option, warrant or other right to acquire additional securities of the Company, except as otherwise noted.