I've noticed that Florian Muller is more skilled at covering his own behind, rather than predicting patent litigation outcomes.
Every prediction he makes is hedged with a statement about how the alternate outcome is possible "even though many don't believe it's likely". Whatever his preferred outcome, he will make the stronger case for that.
Hedging your predictions with qualifying statements is something that any good lawyer will tend to do, and also just plain intellectually honest since predictions about legal processes are rarely 100% certain.
Every prediction he makes is hedged with a statement about how the alternate outcome is possible "even though many don't believe it's likely". Whatever his preferred outcome, he will make the stronger case for that.