You're correct, but in the case of patent acquisitions in many cases having a claim of priority (i.e. filing/invention date) is far more important than whether a patent is granted or not. In any patent litigation, the defendant will argue that a patent is invalid regardless of if it's actually been published.
In other words, when you look at a patent, you can concretely say a couple things: a) what prior art exists and b) what the priority date is. You would like to say c) is this a viable patent, but even if the USPTO grants a patent this is never set in stone (thanks to the court system).
Edit: sounds like the priority dates are all in 2011, which isn't particularly early, still a little dumbfounded.
In other words, when you look at a patent, you can concretely say a couple things: a) what prior art exists and b) what the priority date is. You would like to say c) is this a viable patent, but even if the USPTO grants a patent this is never set in stone (thanks to the court system).
Edit: sounds like the priority dates are all in 2011, which isn't particularly early, still a little dumbfounded.