OK, let me say it clearly - This Supreme Court ruling is a game changer.

Describe any litigation to me and I can predict the outcome far more than 50% of the time with one piece of information. Who has the burden of proof? The party with the burden of proof is at a huge disadvantage. It has to win practically every ruling to get its evidence in. If the judge rules against the admissibility of one crucial piece of evidence, the case can be lost with that one ruling. It has the affirmative requirement of convincing the judge or jury that its position should be adopted. There have been innumerable times when everyone in the court room knew which party "should have " won the case, but didn't. The primary factor is having to shoulder the burden of proof. it is much easier to defend the claim or defense being asserted by confusing the trier of fact or creating sufficient doubt as to whether the other other party has carried its burden to the extent required by law .The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 ruling, said a challenge to a patent claim "requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence."
The standard is not as high as in a criminal trial where the state has to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt", but it certainly tilts the playing field in favor of the party not having the burden of proof.
Traditionally, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in all instances except where the defendant is asserting an affirmative defense. Because of the unique nature of patent litigation, the statue has placed the burden on the defendant as to some of the key issues such as the validity of the patent. the patent holder doesn't have to prove it is valid, the infringer has to prove that it isn't.
You can bet that the defense counsel are having some heart to heart discussions with their clients about this today. Their attitude about settling will take a dramatic turn from this point forward.
My dilemma now is to decide what to sell so I can buy some more ***.