If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.
That is de facto no longer a consideration by the USPTO. Congress could force the PTO to require evidence of production. That would be neat.
In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.
§101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html
§112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
This is not the case at all.
That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.
A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement.
Ie: If my new-widget A relies on patents B and C, but C won't license it to me, it doesn't mean my patent is invalid. It only means I either have to eventually find a way to resolve that licensing issue with the C people, or find a way to replace C with something that doesn't infringe on their patent.
Until then, my new-widget A is protected from a competitor (or even C themselves) selling it before I can find a way to deal with C licensing.
That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.
The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice.
Patents are presumed valid.
So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
That is not morally right. It also isn't the intent of patents, because it does absolutely nothing to further the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Why would my research suddenly become public domain just because I had the idea but technology hadn't caught up yet, even though my research suggested that it would catch up?