It wouldn't be automatic. Courts consider many kinds of evidence of varying strengths, and the probative value of evidence can be challenged by the opposing side. If it appeared that a journal had sprung up specifically to legitimize patents, evidence supporting that view could be introduced as well. Courts exist to weigh such arguments.

In fact, "objective evidence of nonobviousness" is already a well-established concept in patent law [0]. The change I am proposing is, where currently patents are presumed valid until challenged, under my proposal they would be presumed invalid until evidence of nonobviousness were presented that the court found satisfactory.

I don't think we're going to get rid of patents altogether. No patent system is perfect, but I think my proposal would make for a massive improvement.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...