I hope they don't end up in court. I've been a fact witness in 3 patent troll cases. The side I was a witness for won one, forced a settle-out-of-court for the second, and lost the last one. The last one was the biggest and most egregious. There was clear prior art, at least to anyone with a solid understanding of the field (in this case, adding state to otherwise-stateless HTTP interaction).

I remember looking the jury in the eye during my testimony and thinking "these people are tired, they are bored and they don't really have a clue about any of the technology involved here". Sure, it's the lawyers job(s) to try to make sure they do, and that they decide in the "right" direction. But seriously - taking a semi-random set of 12 jurors, sitting them them for 1-2 weeks of court room "education" in network technology, protocols, filesystems, cookies, URL structure and so much more, and then expecting them to come to an "informed" decision?

This is not a justice system worth defending. In the last case, no jury of "peers" - ie. other engineers who actually understand what the patents are about - would ever have found for the plaintiffs. But you end up in court with a very different jury than that, and at that point, the battle has just started.