Well, I'm still confused. Company A has a patent, Company B has a product that doesn't use said patent, Company A sues Company B anyway? Or are you saying tha

Well, I'm still confused. Company A has a patent, Company B has a product that doesn't use said patent, Company A sues Company B anyway? Or are you saying that Company B has a product that they think is original by having never seen the patent beforehand? I'm just getting stuck on the idea of being in a patent lawsuit over a product, or no product I guess, that doesn't involve the company being sued for the patent in question. As for the second point, a clear and precise patent on something obvious would be easy to use. You simply offer to settle and/or license cheaper than it would be to fight it in court, pushing the idea that invalidation is not easy and not common. It would pay off if you think of the long tail. The vague patents are for going after the big targets.