I think this case does make things marginally better. Before you jump all over me, look at the holding.
The Court said that it will maintain the CCE standard for invalidity defenses, not plaintiffs' claims of invalidity. It's a fine point, but important one neverhtless.
You see, CCE has been the standard for plaintiffs alleging patent invalidity since 1982. It's right in the statute. http://openjurist.org/title-35/us-code/section-282/presumpti... . The problem was that Microsoft was trying to reduce the burden of proof for the defense.
A weaker burden for defenses is very very bad. That means, even if a plaintiff shows, by substantial evidence, that a patent is invalid, a defendant can just give the minimal amount of defense...and the defendant will win.
The Court said that it will maintain the CCE standard for invalidity defenses, not plaintiffs' claims of invalidity. It's a fine point, but important one neverhtless.
You see, CCE has been the standard for plaintiffs alleging patent invalidity since 1982. It's right in the statute. http://openjurist.org/title-35/us-code/section-282/presumpti... . The problem was that Microsoft was trying to reduce the burden of proof for the defense.
A weaker burden for defenses is very very bad. That means, even if a plaintiff shows, by substantial evidence, that a patent is invalid, a defendant can just give the minimal amount of defense...and the defendant will win.
So, this improves things...a tiny, weeny bit.