I had a similar post written but decided against posting. Apparently I am not the only one who is trying to understand the import of the SC decision.

It is my understanding that this SC decision is only reaffirming what has been historically been the case. Good news that nothing has changed making it easier to prove invalidity in court, but that's not the same as saying that the courts have changed their thinking as to what is required to prove invalidity. Perhaps it is simply the clarity of the decision which eliminates any lower court using their judgement on how to interpet what is already the law?

If my understanding is not correct, please jump in an correct me.

And if nothing really is changed by the decision, then it probably will not have any impact whatsoever as to the burden of proof regarding infringement. And I do not know what that presently is, but would like to. If anyone has the info please post.

Thanks

Opty