Hi Gator. The judge did change the wording. This

Hi Gator. The judge did change the wording. This is from the first docket entry where he ruled in favor of SA.

For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is GRANTED with prejudice. Because it has been
determined that the Asserted Patents are invalid, the challenge to the claims of willful infringement is
MOOT. In light of this ruling, the hearing scheduled for December 11, 2017 and all other scheduled dates
are vacated. On or before December 11, 2017, and after conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel to seek
agreement as to the form of a judgment, Defendant shall lodge a proposed judgment that is consistent
with this Order. The notice of lodging shall include whether the form of judgment is agreed upon or
whether objections will be filed in accordance with the Local Rules by December 18, 2017.

Then from the last docket entry when the case was terminated.

1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of SecureAuth and against
StrikeForce as to the invalidity of the Asserted Claims;

Notice the difference between asserted claims and asserted patents. I am definitely no lawyer, but it sounds to me that the judge tried to back off of his original judgement slightly and just said SA is not infringing, but now he is not saying the patents are invalid.

That's just my opinion based on how I read it.