[mfr]

I'm just glad that the court explicitly said that "nonpracticing patent owners" are distinct from those who would benefit from the use of the patent in manufacturing.

Stating that “we observe that Acceleron is solely a licensing entity, and without enforcement it receives no benefits from its patents.[...]" is a very interesting retort to the standard argument for IP holding companies, that being "A patent is a patent, and it doesn't matter whether the owner is going to use it to produce an item or not."