I have read the patent of Larry Nichols who assigned it to Moleculon
and it looks to me like they have a very strong case against Ideal.
One should keep in mind, however, that more than 70% of patent
infringement cases go against the patentee.
The basic drawings and descriptions in the patent deal with the 2^3
held together (non-rigidly) by magnets. Nichols discusses the possibility
of fixing the cubies rigidly in his description in a manner not unlike
Rubik. But the fact that he does not mention this aspect in his claims
may be his undoing. He mainly stresses the magnetic attachment. I would
not be surprised if the PTO told him that the rigid attachment would
comprise another implementation and he wished to avoid the extra
expense (I am speaking from experience here). He discusses the puzzle
aspects and some of the higher order cubes and non-cubes we have seen
on the market.
In conclusion, I doubt he will get his 60M from Ideal but I think
he will get a non-trivial percentage and a continuing royalty.