If someone else could read it and file a prior art brief/notification - if appropriate - that'd be helpful.
Saying "oh but your honour, I know of it but I didn't actually read it" won't carry much water if it ever came to trial. If nothing else it would evidence an intent to ... willfully infringe.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and clearly neither are you. Neither of us is giving legal advice.
> Though the Court’s unanimous opinion gives district courts wider latitude to apply enhanced damages under the abuse-of-discretion standard, a concurrence by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, suggests at least two judicial limitations to that discretion: (1) mere knowledge of the patent is insufficient to support enhanced damages; and (2) “enhanced damages may not serve to compensate patentees for infringement-related costs or litigation expenses.”
There should be no IP reason to stop using Bitcoin HD Wallets for handling multiple Bitcoin accounts due to the linked patent filing because Bitcoin HD Wallets existed four (4) years prior to what seems to be described in the patent abstract copied to this thread.