You're missing the point. Lawyers do that all the time because they get caught up in technicalities, and it's why they are so despised. Back away from the case, look at it objectively, and you can see that the legal frameworks surrounding patent and copyright are fundamentally broken. Laws are supposed to come into existence because of a fundamental need to protect. When they become subverted and abused, like the entire "intellectual property" industry has done, they start damaging far more than protecting. In the same way that the First Amendment does not protect you yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or threatening to kill someone, patent and copyright law should not protect trolls or obvious implementations.
Your argument largely consists of "this is legal", and while that may be true, that was not the point of the parent post. The point of the parent post was that for this nonsense to continue provides evidence of a fundamentally broken system because it has been many many years, and this case has been dealt setback after setback, yet it's not done. If the system is so overly complex and backlogged that it takes, what, almost a decade for this sort of thing to be resolved, that is a massive problem.