The strength of the patent position is indeed critical. But I've seen the mighty Medtronic brought low by one man with a GOOD patent. And there are a few examples where companies that jumped a patent and effectively said "We expect to have to pay eventually; we'll let the courts decide how much" found out that even bad negotiators could have struck a better deal (Kodak-Polaroid is the classic).
So if the patents are faulty, that will be exploited; if they're good, other companies would be foolish to barge in. The patents won't fall for obviousness--CIN has been too big a problem for too long. The most significant prior art would be semi-closed-loop insulin therapy, which doesn't seem all that close. That mostly leaves claims construction, which is too technical for me to judge at all, or for even a legal expert to judge quickly. Right now, I think you could buy PLC and give all of us a nice payday within the legal budget for a full pre-launch patent evaluation.