Hate Liars, claims further define patents and they

Hate Liars, claims further define patents and they are integral part of patents so you can't say " None of the patents were challenged".
The asserted claims belonged to the asserted patents, make sense?

The CA judge invalidated all 43 "asserted claims" across all 3 patents under 101 ground. (see below)


Final judgment
On July 17, 2017, StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“StrikeForce”) filed a First Amended Complaint accusing SecureAuth Corporation (“SecureAuth”)
of infringing Claims 1, 7, 11, 17-19, 21, 22, 28, 31, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent 7,870,599, Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 20-22, 46-48, and 50-54 of U.S. Patent 8,484,698,
and Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent 8,713,701 (the “Asserted Claims”).
On July 21, 2017, SecureAuth filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Asserted Claims were all invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On December 1, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting SecureAuth’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice thereby invalidating all Asserted Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED THAT:
1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of SecureAuth and against StrikeForce as to the invalidity of the Asserted Claims;
2. StrikeForce shall take nothing and all claims asserted by StrikeForce against SecureAuth in this action are dismissed with prejudice;
3. SecureAuth may seek to recover costs in the sum of an amount to be determined by the filing and approval of the appropriate application.
The amount determined may be subject to a tax and/or interest at the legal rate as provided by law; and
4. Because no claims remain in this action, the Court directs the Clerk to enter this Final Judgment as set forth above pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.



"could he himself overturn the decision? "

No, it's not just one new judge, the appeal will be heard by a panel of 3 CAFC judges.