This is a big test for IV, but I am uncertain that it will individually change the course of affairs for the general patent question. The second This American Life episode cited by Reuven includes a good indication of why. These cases seem often to be examined not on underlying principle, but on the direct evidence. The 'network update' patent from TAL was busted not because the patent itself was found to be ambiguous or over-broad but because its authorship was incorrectly assigned to only one of its 'inventors'. Super narrow and no principle other than "check your application more carefully next time".

In my opinion, this is how it should be. Courts should enforce the law, not change it (excepting the Supreme Court's right to reject the unconstitutional). For that, we need to work through Congress to modernize the definition of patents in respect to software.

These cases play an important role in that process, which is to create a body of guidance on how software patents are being used and how they are being challenged, for statutory reform and/or legal appeal.

[[As is probably obvious, I am not a lawyer, so I apologize for any legal inaccuracies in the above]]