That is incorrect. A patent is valid intrinsically. The moment it becomes or is approved as a patent by the uspto, it is then a valid patent, not because of what its value or what it may or may not be able to do, but because it met the criteria required by uspto to become a patent. Thus a patent is fully valid it's entire life unless and until someone comes along and challenges uspto as much as the patent itself, for that intrinsic validity. And if the challenge is successful, then the patent becomes invalidated unless, I think, only some component of the patent is invalidated but the rest of the patent remains valid. Has to be 1 or the other.
And so, since none of the many challenges to the patents has resulted in any kind of invalidation, then of course, the patents are intact and the same as the day they were born, validity wise. They have not gained anything in the process, only successfully defended themselves against the challenges. Unless you can show where any of above is not fully factual, then it becomes obvious that the infringement trials are NOT about validity. They can't be. Makes no sense. The trials are about showing that the defendants have indeed stolen and used or use the technology imbedded in the patents. That is nothing to do with validity. It's more of did your hands go in the cookie jar and did the cookies wind up in your belly?
"And not all patents are valid as the only entity to make that determination is the court AFTER a lawsuit."
That is PATENTLY a false statement. All patents are valid unless and until a challenger, usually via an IPR trial, successfully gets a patent or some part of it made to be invalid. It's my belief that a judge and jury determines if the patent was truly infringed upon NOT whether it's valid or not.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
