No they were the first to patent there is a difference.So it was original art that they were the first to achieve. That’s when you were a granted a patent. If the patent is worthless there’s no argument but there was, even in this thread. Argument over.
The USPTO are fairly terrible at granting low quality patents in areas they don't understand or where prior art is written in languages they don't understand. I know I have several such patents to my name, which work had me file...
In my opinion this patent shouldn't have been granted as it fails the obviousness test to someone skilled in the art but since it was and since IPR review was denied on it for frankly technical reasons the patent stands until it is actually litigated before a court.
Despite all the cases and legal machinations these patents have never been litigated and there is a chance Red would lose if they were.
We'll only get to see if the Nikon case actually gets to court rather than being settled. So far Nikon's opening gambit as far as I can tell is that the patents are invalid because Red themselves disclosed the supposed invention in marketing material before they filed.