Not quite. If that were the case, piracy sites like TPB would be forever safe in a country that doesn't recognize US copyright. We've all seen how that ends up. I haven't heard of a single attempt of a patent holder to challenge VLC (not that I'm complaining).
Also, they're distributing the software to people in countries where those patents are recognized.
LAME hasn't included an mp3 encoder for these same reasons, even though its FOSS software.
I always assumed the reason no one bothered VideoLAN was a combination of the fact that 1.) VLC truly has remained a non-profit project, unlike many other FOSS software that makes money via some kind of business model (ads, premium support, etc.) and (less likely) 2.) everyone loves VLC so much that even the people possibly affected by the licensing don't care because they use it themselves.
How is there no relation? They're both protected forms of IP from the US. If someone in a foreign country violates this, the US makes international efforts to stop it.
The enforcement of rights is a proper function of government. Unfortunately the government does not protect everyone equally.
Copyright holders have formed a few broad, cross-industry associations in order to protect their rights as widely as possible. These organizations represent the combined interests of many powerful people and so are able to exert significant political influence.
There are no equivalent organizations for patents, and the numerous industry bodies that manage licensing are often very small, narrow in scope, and lack the funding to lobby effectively.
Problem solved!