In 1987, Tom and elder brother David, a bookbindery foreman with a talent for marketing, packed in their jobs to support their father's research. While testing a fine-line engraving method, Ralph Wicker befriended Patrick White, a print shop owner who put all the latest color-copier models at his disposal. Shortly before securing a patent in 1991, Ralph presented his work to Secret Service officials who urged him not to share it with others, his sons contend. It was his proudest breakthrough because of its lofty potential to become a key buffer for the nation's money. Again, however, the euphoria didn't last. The Treasury stopped taking his calls, his sons say, and then unveiled a technique it called ''concentric fine-line printing.'' That's when Ralph Wicker called in his attorneys. In a 1995 lawsuit seeking up to $93 million in royalties, he accused the Treasury Department of pirating his patented method of incorporating fine-line engravings in its newly unveiled $100 bill. The micro-patterns cause blurriness, color changes and other electronic distortions when copied.

What a crock of BS.
Wicker's patent was thrown out in 1995 because it was too obvious and not inventive enough. Security document artist's have relied on producing designs that consist of fine lines at high frequencies since the dawning of paper currency and the judge rendered the patent null because of that.
That Wicker claimed it as his invention was, in the very least, opportunistic. Every bank note ever produced has incorporated these techniques as a deterrent to counterfeiting and fraud.
The advent of scanners and copiers didn't cause the designer to develop these techniques, they already existed!By claiming moire affects and anomolies in scans and photocopies was nothing more than an observation of the obvious. Neither the techniques to create the artwork nor the technolgy to copy it originated with Wicker so why should he claim ownership of and for the result of their fateful intersection/interaction.
Furthermore, Wicker emulated established security design techniques that were the domain of specialised designers within the security print industry for many years before his patent filing and claimed them as his own.
Finally, DSS security feature "Blockout" is an infringement of an existing patent by Xerox. They also sell security features that are patented by Omron, De La Rue and Jura Trade, to name a few, as their own.
So, it's no surprise that Wicker lost his case against the US Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
The patent infringement suit against the European Central Bank will end no differently.
In the meantime speculators will be riding DSS stocks in hopes of a big payoff that will surely not materialize.
A cheap marketing ploy? Perhaps that is the only reason that the lawsuit was filed.