Two links, here and here. In reading the Groklaw item, "FOSS" means free, open-source software. That term is not without debate over meaning, as there are numerous license variants in existence for "open source."
Also, Sun indicated it was making Java "open source," Oracle acquired Sun, and Oracle has sued Google over Android code being in violation of its patents and copyright. That is not "open source" and can a firm legitimately pull back on a string? Clearly, the intellectual property holder has an edge, in that "open source" was for a prior generation of "Java," whereas this new product is updated in so many ways that the the name is the same but it advances well beyond the older stuff we agreed to make open source.
In the i4i suit, Microsoft lost on a trial court standard that clear and convincing evidence was needed to overcome a presumption of patent validity because of deference to the technical expertise of the Patent Office and its personnel and procedural protections.
That might have been a legitimate argument in earlier times, but so much is filed with the Patent Office and hence a great deal of things that should be rejected are not rejected, it being easier to wield a rubber stamp than to make decisions that would have disgruntled applicants making noise and taking up even more time.
What is interesting is the corporate parade of big names being amicus to the tiny i4i firm; not wanting their oxen to be gored - or their cash cows, to use a better term.
The patent system is a mess, and one decision, however decided will not be a fix, but one can be sympathetic to the arguments either way; and whether the Supreme Court really takes cognizance of how the patent system actually exists and hence whether a high degree of deference is due, or not, will be interesting to see.