For big companies, you need one whistleblower. You hire one employee over. They say "Oh gosh. We were doing the same thing." It's hard to keep that sort of thin

For big companies, you need one whistleblower. You hire one employee over. They say "Oh gosh. We were doing the same thing." It's hard to keep that sort of thing secret. Warrants are granted to law enforcement, not in civil suits between corporations. The word is subpoena, and if you knew even the basics of what you're talking about, you'd use correct terminology. Legal discovery usually doesn't have a "very high burden of proof," because there are very reasonable ways to compartmentalize information. Legal discovery usually leads to a ton of transparency, at least to the legal teams on both sides (and a firewall, so that can't go over to the engineers). MOST executives are diligent about responding to subpoenas. Judges have broad discretion for contempt-of-court, up to and including prison. If you're the CEO of BioCorp, and you can: 1) Respond promptly, completely, and accurately. Risk: You might wipe $200 million off of your books and cost each investor $2 OR 2) Stonewall the court or lie. Risk: You might get thrown in prison. Which do you do? Most executives pick responding promptly. Not all, but most. Most companies are super-careful not to infringe patents that they know about, because it's not fun. Unless it's a case of mutually-assured destruction. There are whole industries where everyone infringes, and no one sues anyone.