The news about Bb's recent loss in court has spawned a new conversation about the status of the threat. It looks like the net of the recent news is this:

There are two groups of claims in the patent: Claims 1-35 ("system" claims based on claim 1); and Claims 36-44 ("method") claims based on claim 36). The recent decision takes out the first group, but leaves the second group. I understand that the second group may be easier to attack because claim 36 is less convoluted than claim 1. Since it's less convoluted, it may also be easier to demonstrate that one does not actually infringe those claims.

Remember that there are at least three things going on here:

1. The SFLC patent re-exam (Ex-parte): Filed Nov 2006, Granted Jan 2007, current status: In progress.
2. The D2L paten re-exam (Inter-partes): Filed Dec 2006, Granted Feb 2007, current status: In progress.
3. The Bb suit against D2L: In a patent infringement suit like Bb vs. D2L, there's an important phase that preceeds the trial called the "Markman Hearing." This is the source of the news we've been hearing this year. In this phase, the judge determines what the patent actually means--the scope of the patent. The decision that invalidated claims 1-35 came from the Markman Hearing, and it means that those claims won't be. While this case is independent of the re-exam's, the public's condemnation of the patent, the overwhelming attention, and the two re-exam's probably had some influence on the judge.

#1 and #2 above aim to destroy the patent. They both use a wealth of prior art to argue that the patent claims are non-novel and obvious (a valid patent must be novel and non-obvious of course). #3 is specifically about the suit between Blackboard and D2L.

And don't forget Blackboard's patent pledge for OSS. Though it was far less than what the education community expected of Blackboard, it does provide some useful assurances for the open source communities. Though I'm sure it's Sakai's great software that keeps adoption growing strong.