No, but I would expect jurors in a patent validity case to understand the concept of "prior art", which was demonstrated quite conclusively for this "invention".
This was my opinion too. I'm shocked that they didn't take it into consideration. Ironically the plaintiff tried to discredit Diffie by mentioning that the GCHQ "invented" the encryption even before Diffie did (this was mentioned in a previous Ars Technica article) which makes it prior art to the alleged patents too. A sad day :(
