Not one bit. A rejection of that patent doesn’t make the...

It is not black and white as the “they have a patent, lay down misère”, Dale Kerrigan defence.

The defendant doesn't have to "to argue that they didn't know what they were doing", they only need to show that the original patent grant was invalid as specified in section 101 of US Patent act.

It is absolutely the right defence, it puts the onus of proof of innovation on to the patent holder, and it appears that it is working given the court is considering a motion to dismiss the entire claim based upon this.

Not one bit. A rejection of that patent doesn’t make the original patent any more valid, which is where the decision on the case now rests.

The validity of that patent will be judged on its own merits, using previous similar cases.