I think in Patent law benefiting the creator isn't even part of the balance (at least not directly). The purpose was to prevent trade secrets by offering tempo

I think in Patent law benefiting the creator isn't even part of the balance (at least not directly). The purpose was to prevent trade secrets by offering temporary legal protection if the creator gives the public details about the invention. Without patents there's a risk that the creator keeps their invention secret forever and then it's forgotten. This could still happen today, but if the invention details are ever leaked you'd have no ability to stop others from making and using it and no ability to demand money for it (though you could sue the person who leaked it, but only civilly). I think in cases like this where it's unlikely to have been a trade secret anyway the justification that the patent is in the best interest of the public or is 'promoting the progress of science and useful arts' is harder to make. This is especially true when the research is the result of public funding (though I'm not sure that was true in this case).