Well, I don't know about law guru, but I did go to law school. Take that for what its worth.
I'm not an issues and appeals lawyer, but here's what I know about appeals. Appeals are only for questions of law, never for questions of facts. And the question of law must be unsettled (otherwise, why would SCOTUS take the case?) SCOTUS probably took this case to clarify the defendant's burden of proof regarding invalidity defenses.
Now, this particular case was about the standard of proof for invalidity defenses (and jury instructions). The trial court told the jury that MS had to defend against invalidity claim by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft thought that was the wrong standard. SCOTUS said that the lower court was right.
So, since the lower courts applied the right standard, this is the end of the line. The verdict against MS will stand.
tl;dr: appeals (cetorari_ to SCOTUS) focuses on unsolved or ambiguous questions of law, not factual issues. (Mixed questions of fact and law is a whole 'nother story...you don't want to know).
Is SCOTUS restricted to just the questions raised to them, or can they make their holding on another question that wasn't raised? For example, could they have said in this case, yes, the lower court applied the right standard for evidence, but the patent itself is nonstatutory following the Flook precedent?
P.S. Law school qualifies as guru for any questions I'm likely to ask.
SCOTUS is indeed limited to the question raised during the appeals process. Even if SCOTUS thought "geez this patent sucks," they can't do anything.
Why not? Well, for better or worse, the American judicial system puts a lot of weight on trial courts and juries' ability to assess facts. The appeals system was set up in such a way to prevent higher courts from actually deciding the case. If SCTOUS had found that the lower courts applied the wrong rule of evidence (burden of proof here), then the case would have gone back to trial and retried (isn't that crazy?).
And trust me, law school doesn't quality everyone as a guru. I have some experience with appeals, but I'm far from an issue & appeals lawyer (they're pros at this). So, take my words with a grain of salt.
I'm not an issues and appeals lawyer, but here's what I know about appeals. Appeals are only for questions of law, never for questions of facts. And the question of law must be unsettled (otherwise, why would SCOTUS take the case?) SCOTUS probably took this case to clarify the defendant's burden of proof regarding invalidity defenses.
Now, this particular case was about the standard of proof for invalidity defenses (and jury instructions). The trial court told the jury that MS had to defend against invalidity claim by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft thought that was the wrong standard. SCOTUS said that the lower court was right.
So, since the lower courts applied the right standard, this is the end of the line. The verdict against MS will stand.
tl;dr: appeals (cetorari_ to SCOTUS) focuses on unsolved or ambiguous questions of law, not factual issues. (Mixed questions of fact and law is a whole 'nother story...you don't want to know).