1. It could have been worse -- as correctly pointed out by carussell, the Supreme Court decision merely validates the the way courts have been deciding cases for the past 25-plus years;
2. The Supreme Court's opinion [1] urges judges to give specific instructions to the jury that it is allowed to take into account the fact that prior art introduced at trial was not considered by the patent examiner. That will be useful for defense counsel -- you can never know whether a given judge will agree to give such an instruction, so it'll be quite helpful to be able to refer the judge to a Supreme Court "suggestion" on that point;
3. The concurring opinion of Breyer, joined by Scalia and Alito, emphasizes that the clear-and-convincing standard applies only to proof of facts and has nothing to do with the ultimate legal question of validity. That, too, will be useful in trying to get the trial judge to give the jury a specific instruction on that point.