I'm not American and although I've just read the Wikipedia article on that case I don't think I fully understand it or it's relevance as it seems only to apply when they conflict with the constitution which I don't believe is the case here and is a different matter entirely in my view.

If party A has a valid patent party B must license or work around. I don't understand why it would be just for party A to have to prove actual damages. That they have been denied license fees OR elected not to license to retain exclusivity is surely evidence it self of damage.

Had the judge taken one look at the patents and declared them obvious and lacking novelty And given the Patent Office an earful I would fully have approved but to me he seems to have said even valid patents are only enforceable in limited conditions which should be set out in law.