It's a possibility.
In my opinion when the hearing on 101 was held she seemed inclined to rule for WDDD, based on the questions she didn't ask and by not wanting to hear from counsel on part 2 of the two part test, regarding inventive nature of the patent. One would only do that if they were inclined NOT to dismiss on 101 as it would create an appealable issue if you dismiss on 101 and did not give the losing party a chance to be heard on the issue. Then ruling comes out and part 2 is applicable and determination patent is not sufficiently inventive (or whatever language was used).
My guess would be she had a change of heart on the potential ruling sometime after the hearing but before the election. The ruling could have been delayed until way after the election to limit the appearance that the election was the hold up. Have to see which party wins if there is a promise under the table. Based on the timing of the ruling, they probably didn't account for a settlement happening and the pending Linden settlement may have forced her hand to rule sooner. If the original plan was to dismiss or even not sure at the hearing one would give the opportunity to be heard to avoid appealable issues. Very sloppy if that was the case.
Perhaps the ruling gets overturned in the future. We will likely never know what really happened here.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
