That's just one patent that got invalidated. And that required Google to identify one comment from more than a decade back to argue that the patent was obvious (rather than anticipated). All that to kill a single MS patent.

MS has hundreds, probably thousands of patents in their portfolio. A single patent makes negligible difference to the portfolio.

In addition, MS has prevailed in court with several other patents in many other jurisdictions, so clearly they have enforceable patents in their portfolio. That is why they can rightfully continue asking for licenses.

This is one of the "practical" problems of licensing large portfolios that I alluded to. The quality or fate of a single patent does not reflect on the entire portfolio. Conversely, invalidating each patent or valuing each patent is also incredibly complex.

There is an entire field of specialization for valuing portfolios. Calling it extortion is mostly the efforts of one side of the table to exert indirect pressure on the other