There is no getting around the patents. It seems more like the argument was based on semantics which would make the particular case with yahoo a technicality, and appeal can correct it. There is the doctrine of equivalents. Stay tuned, yahoo is definitely an infringer, and will likely need to still face the music. It was alluded to by Nathan Bradley, that yahoo escaped by a technicality, but subsequently talked themselves into admission of infringement with another patent containing slightly different language, but essentially the same technology. This is just round 1.
The discussion about hiring another law firm (McKool-Smith), if followed on by the company could change the dynamic. I am sure GP is a very competent firm, but as many have commented recently, getting that MSJ granted to yahoo is outrageous, and may reveal there is less there than necessary. We just need the first one, and as been shown with VHC last week, the rest will fall like dominoes