Companies that specialize in acquiring patents and then licensing them out are also attracting more attention. Some are seen as potentially lucrative, like Acacia Research. But Rambus' defeat underscores the volatile nature of that sort of business.
"Companies that make money off of patents rather than products face significant risks to their business model as each important case, in a sense, is a bet-the-company litigation," said Colleen Chien, a professor at Santa Clara Law.
Neither of these companies was a pattet troll as your post somewhat implies.
Rambus had a technology that never panned out (a serial bus memory interface). But where they struck in patents was a complete BS patent involving DDR ram. When the industry was agreing on what should be a standard for how this should work (so chips coud be used interchangably) RMBS snuck out and got a pattent on it. The RMBS patents were a total joke.
This has little to do with MNTA. MNTA's tech did work, it allowed them to characterize Lovenox such that they could get mL approved years faster than either Amphastar or Teva. Even w/o the pattent the tech netted hundreds of millions on mL alone.
And at this moment in time it is uuncertain if anubody can yet make a generic Lovenox w/o the MNTA technology. Of course it can be done sometime, but when and at what cost is open to question.
Yes, the Amphastar trial is big, but not the entire company.