Re: Wait, what?
Okay, I'll bite.
There are two matters to be decided. One is whether or not the 3DS infringes Tomita's patent. The first court said it does. This hasn't changed, and wasn't changed by the appeal verdict.
The second ruling is more tricky: "how much, in monetary terms, has Mr Tomita lost in licence fees as a result of this infringement?". The first court said $30 million. This is what was disputed.
Tomita's lawyers had based their calculations of damages on a claim that without Tomita's 3D system, the 3DS could not have been a success. There are two claims here. 1. "The 3DS isn't viable without 3D", but also the impled second claim: 2. "the 3DS system is a successful product".
On 1, many of the system's titles don't use 3D so it doesn't hold that without 3D there would be no market for games on the system. But more imprortantly, the second assertion, that 3DS was a successful product, is not true - it's a loss-making system.
The appeal jude agreed with Nintendo's appeal, but as the original infringement still happened, decided to award a lower amount, rather than overturning the original verdict.
So, there you go. It's still a violation of the original patent (but Nintendo will be granted a licence once settlement is made), but the compensation due to Tomita for this crime isn't as high as his lawyers made out.