The story is missing a key detail: HOW did they win in court?
There are a couple of ways a plaintiff can lose. (1) the court finds that the defendant did not do anything that is covered by any of the valid patent claims. (2) the court finds that the patent should not have issued in the first place, due to a problem such as prior art making it not non-obvious, the patentee not being the inventor, and so on.
Knowing this is important because it determines who this case affects those who are not Kaspersky. If Kaspersky won because they simply did not do anything that is covered by the patent, but the patent is valid, then everyone else still has to worry about that patent.
If Kaspersky won because the court found that the patent is invalid, then we can all scratch this patent off our lists of patents we have to worry about.
(And all of this, of course, depends on what happens in the appeals court if the plaintiff appeals).
There are a couple of ways a plaintiff can lose. (1) the court finds that the defendant did not do anything that is covered by any of the valid patent claims. (2) the court finds that the patent should not have issued in the first place, due to a problem such as prior art making it not non-obvious, the patentee not being the inventor, and so on.
Knowing this is important because it determines who this case affects those who are not Kaspersky. If Kaspersky won because they simply did not do anything that is covered by the patent, but the patent is valid, then everyone else still has to worry about that patent.
If Kaspersky won because the court found that the patent is invalid, then we can all scratch this patent off our lists of patents we have to worry about.
(And all of this, of course, depends on what happens in the appeals court if the plaintiff appeals).