That marketing language is interesting, and I assume that it's a fair reiteration of just what the technology covers, but analysis of patent infringement is pretty complicated and is fully disconnected from this type of broad language. The following discussion on patent infringement analysis is me being pretty simplistic and keeping things in layman's terms, so if there are other patent litigators (or better yet, patent drafters) on the board that can be more succinct, or if I have misstated anything, feel free to elaborate further and/or correct me!
The primary portion of any patent, the guts of it, are the claims. They form the boundaries of the rights granted under the patent, and are the main thing relied upon in any infringement analysis.
A secondary, but still important part of the patent, are the specifications. The specifications are language before the claims that isn't itself directly enforceable, but can aid a court in determining infringement and broaden the potential scope of the claim. The specifications broadly describe the invention, and describe as well possible additional characteristics of the invention, potential additional uses or modifications that could be made, etc., as a means of expanding the meaning that can be given to the claims. They are particularly useful in anticipating ways later practitioners might try to expand on your invention to work around your claims.
Generally speaking, there are two types of claims, independent claims, and dependent claims.
Independent claims are just that--they stand on their own and don't rely upon any other claims to be valid. So something like "I claim A."
Dependent claims rely upon an independent claim, and requires BOTH the thing claimed in the independent claim AND the in the dependent claim. So something like "I claim a B, which is also an A."
Analysis of infringement usually starts with the patent lawyer getting a VERY clear understanding of its client's patent, learning the claims and the specifications inside out. Once you have a solid understanding of the claims and specs, you need to get your mitts on the technology being used by the other side to make an initial determination of infringement.
Often, it's as easy as going to the market and buying the other guy's product, then breaking it down in a lab to see if the claims "read on" the product, i.e,. if the product falls within the scope of the claims.
Other times, it's more difficult, particularly where the competitor's product is not yet released into the market. That's the case here. ATHX isn't going to give up all of its secret sauce about its products and production processes, and they aren't yet commercialising the product, so even if it is infringing, there isn't a really good basis for MSB to issue proceedings that would give them a tool to force ATHX to disclose those things to see whether they are infringing (via a process in litigation called discovery, where the parties are required, in Common Law countries like the US and Oz, to hand over documents relevant to the claims to the other side).
Given that, the next best thing is for MSB, via its scientists and its patent lawyers (some of whom are probably BOTH scientists and patent lawyers) to study up on the technology via third-party information, such as technological publications, research papers, and any other publicly-released information relating to the tech, such as clinical trial reports.
In that regard, I assume that MSB has already formed a reasonably solid opinion as to whether MAPCs, and ATHX's processes surrounding their creation, generation and development, infringe ANY claims of ANY of MSB's patents, and probably already have a strategy mapped out as to which of its patents would be brought to bear against anyone using MAPCs. They may need to claim against ATHX once its selling product to obtain discovery against them in relation to precisely how the products are being manufactured to make a determination of infringement of patents covering processes for production. That's permitted--you can use discovery to flesh out and prove your claims (which can be based upon reasonable suspicions of infringement)
Given all of the above, and while I love seeing MSB touting its 1000+ patents, we don't know how many of them are really solid patents, and we also don't know how well ATHX and others have done at designing their products and processes AROUND MSB's patents.
That's because it's a requirement of being granted a patent that you disclose, clearly and easily for everyone in world to understand, just what your patent covers, and just HOW you practice it (i.e., how you exploit it). So ATHX, and its lawyers and scientists have a complete roadmap as to what MSB's patents cover, and are free to try to work around those patents and claims to fall outside the scope of protection.
In the end, it's going to come down to a judge, or potentially in the US, a jury, to make a determination as to whether ATHX and MAPCs are successful in doing that.
Expand
(20min delay)