MediaG3 (MDGC)

[Cassandra]

If Ubiquiti obtains patents, they owe royalties to no one, even if their patents are an improvement of formerly patented technology.

As I previously posted, most patents cite prior art that relate to what is being patented. If the invention is found by the USPTO to not be obvious to someone skilled in the art (i.e. sufficiently novel) in light of all known prior art, the patent can be approved.

It's a little more complicated than that, but the gist of it is that just because Ubiquiti is applying for and obtaining patents that may seem to be in the same space as MediaG3's old Wytec patents, it doesn't mean that they owe MDGC anything. In fact, the approved patents should be evidence that no other inventors have a claim to what they have patented. If MediaG3 believed that the new patents did infringe, they'd first have to successfully challenge the validity of the new patents with the USPTO before filing any infringement lawsuit.

Even Wytec cited prior art from other inventors in their patents. That doesn't mean that they would owe those prior inventors any royalties if they were ever to get some. It's the exact opposite.