I think the new ruling may make a difference at the appellate court level (e.g. CAFC), but I don't think it changes much the present actions that Patriot has ongoing in the NDCA. At the CAFC, which seems to be continually getting smacked down by the Supreme Court, they may become a bit more cautious in terms of reversal.

As for deference to ITC, I don't know how that will work out. But I suspect nothing changes as far as district court goes.

I thought the following was interesting language that somewhat tempers the new ruling by the supreme court when it comes to denovo review versus deference.

(c)This leaves the question of how the clear error standard should be applied when reviewing subsidiary fact finding in patent claim construction. When the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent, the judge’s determination is solely a determination of law, and the court of appeals will review that construction de novo. However, where the district court needs to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period, and where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence. The district judge, after deciding the factual dispute, will then interpret the patent claim in light of the facts as he has found them. The ultimate construction of the claim is a legal conclusion that the appellate court can review de novo. But to overturn the judge’s resolution of an underlying factual dispute, the appellate court must find that the judge, in respect to those factual findings, has made a clear error. Pp. 11–14.