The plaintiffs trying to invalidate the patents have always had to climb a steep hill. My point is that this case doesn't change that. If you look at the statute and precedent, the plaintiffs always had to establish invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. (The appropiateness of that is a question for Congress, not the Court because the statute is clear on this point.)

So, this case just makes things equal between the plaintiffs and defendants. Once the plaintiffs do overcome the admittedly-high obstacle of proving invalidity, the defendant can't just put up a weak defense and get away with it. That's good!

Your problem with the patent system is completely valid, but the Supreme Court can't change law (or is not supposed to). Congress is the one who is responsible for this quagmire, not the Court.

The whole patent system is broken, and this case improves things by a nanogram (is that a word?)./