I heard the same rumor. It will be interesting to see how they proceed from here.
As for the decision, I think it is much harder to prove abstract concepts to juries without some sort of physical example. Apple was easier to explain because jurors could see the actual video chat application in use and the "real-time" connections, as defined by the patents, were translated into something tangible.
Cisco, on the other hand, was being sued for legacy communications products that operate much differently than an iPhone or iPad. And on top of that, it was the way Cisco's clients connected - utilized the product - that determined the infringement.
I can only imagine how much more difficult it is to prove to a jury that a networking router is using patented inventions vs. showing them that a tablet with a display screen is using similar technology.
Market Data 
Markets 
