A company patented the concept of making toast well after toasters were on the market. Another patented recurring payments of online service long after that was normal. Another guy modified a patent to cover podcasting after podcasting was invented and in use.
Point being, something being patented != something being invented. It just means examiners agreed with the claims of a piece of paper then turned that into a piece of intellectual property. The wins then mean courts agreed that claims in that property match some other product to some degree. Neither means someone copied someone. Whether that's true varies on a case by case basis.
I think it's telling that many defendants develop their own, "infringing" tech without ever hearing of the plantiff or their patents. Hard to copy what you don't know exists. In science, we call it independent invention but patent system makes that impossible. Plus, on software patents, what programmers have you met who comb through patent databases to solve their day-to-day problems? I've never met one.
Concluding, patents are legal pronouncements that may or may not cover inventions. Rulings on copying may be right or bullshit. Copying is usually unknowing or independent invention because nobody solves problems with patent databases in our industry. I remember running into maybe 3 or 4 worth looking at in Google search solving a problem. One was novel but others patented ideas already in products or Comp Sci literature. Well-known ideas that were foundational to product success. (sighs)