"In re Biliski" does not require something to be "a product" to patent it. There is no commercial success or commercialization requirement to get a patent. What Biliski requires is that the actual claim language for a process claim (1) is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
There are also equitable defenses of laches and estoppel etc but usually there has to be unreasonable delay and reliance on the delay.
I have not researched this case in particular but it could be that the infringement recently started to occur, or started a handful of years ago and IPAT had tried to do this "nicely" but did not have luck. Maybe IPAT is in the wrong.
In any case, hopefully whoever is in the right will come out on top here.