Finding such a situation shows that FTO due diligence has been done. First of all, it is good to find that the core technology has been covered by others. Now that it is covered by their patents, we can still find some differences, which is one of the traditional ways to avoid risks. Because the patent rogue company is not a competitor, there is no way to do business cooperation with him for cross-licensing, or to intimidate him with other patents.
First of all, it depends on whether you can avoid design or invention with this kind of design or invention around you. I prefer to use invent around, which means invention circumvention. In this way, you can still find some differences from the patents of patent hooligans, and then use them in products. If possible, you still have to apply for patents, which is beneficial.
The other, because he is a patent hooligan, wants to charge. Then if your circumvention design or invention circumvention can be done, of course, if it can't be done or the cost is too high, or the user experience is not good after you circumvent the design, then talk to him about some licensed things at this time. Because of permission, after all, the sooner the better, especially when your products have not entered the market or entered the market in large quantities, you can still negotiate the price.
Third, if you have used all the previous ones and still don't get the results you want, you can use the US Patent Office, such as the IPR we are talking about now, that is, both parties have given Interparts Review (third-party review procedure) to invalidate his patent, because the success rate of this IPR is higher than that of the current Post-Authorization Review (PGR), and the success rate is over 76% or even over 90%. This can be done. Another possibility is to try to invalidate the patent if it cannot be discussed in this process.