This is the reason that tech companies seek to acquire large rather than technically sound patent portfolios.
Briefly: defense against infringement runs around $1-$10 million per patent )(it may be higher, my information's somewhat dated). Defeat one patent, and the company with the larger portfolio presses suit with another, and another. Even if the plaintiff successfully defends itself against these suits, it's still out $1-$10 million per patent. Often far better to strike a licensing deal for $40k (or some value less than $1-$10m).
It's possible to countersue, and this happens, usually with the result that the companies reach a cross-licensing arrangement.
"does the defending party get their legal fees reimbursed by the suing party?"
Almost never.
The law requires "exceptional circumstances" for an award of attorney fees and the CAFC (the patent appeals court) is inclined to reverse even fees awarded under those circumstances.
There were two cases argued at the Supreme Court this week to try to define what constitutes "exceptional" and reduce the authority of the CAFC to weaken the awards. [0] The court isn't expected to change much.
There is a bill in Congress that has passed the House and is being considered by the Senate [1] which would change the rule to award fees by default "unless the court finds that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party or parties were reasonably justified in law and fact."
So plenty of people even in languid Washington are frustrated with the current lack of fee shifting. Maybe something will be done. Maybe not. Washington is not famous for swiftness or wisdom.
That depends. One of the problems, again, is that the process can take its sweet time to happen, and there's always a risk involved. Your legal team needs to be paid up-front, generally, which means that in terms of financial capital you're allocating your resources in advance, and have that much less to contribute to real business investment.
Other than that -- I'm wading in above my head, so I'll let someone more qualified respond at more length.
This is the reason that tech companies seek to acquire large rather than technically sound patent portfolios.
Briefly: defense against infringement runs around $1-$10 million per patent )(it may be higher, my information's somewhat dated). Defeat one patent, and the company with the larger portfolio presses suit with another, and another. Even if the plaintiff successfully defends itself against these suits, it's still out $1-$10 million per patent. Often far better to strike a licensing deal for $40k (or some value less than $1-$10m).
It's possible to countersue, and this happens, usually with the result that the companies reach a cross-licensing arrangement.