1. I was talking about validity. A hint to that effect was that my sentence explicitly talked about the burden of proof of patent validity. To win a patent case, you must have a valid patent and that patent must be infringed. The plaintiff enters the case with an advantage by law on the validity issue, which was the point of #1.
I dealt with why the plaintiff has an advantage on the infringement issue in point #2.
2. You asked: "Do you actually follow the US legal system?"
I answered: "Yes". Please explain how that is not an answer to the question you asked.
You've done nothing to explain how the presumption of validity implies the plaintiff will ultimately win, nor how my analogy to the validity of a law is wrong.
If the answer were really just "Yes", you shouldn't have felt it necessary to bring academic credentials into the discussion, instead of just leaving it at "Yes".
We know from history that extremely weak cases are filed all the time, usually hopes of attempting to force a settlement, and that there have been few effective barriers to such tactics. There were even fewer barriers during the era before the Federal Circuit came to be.
Your bald assertion about "weak" cases being weeded out is contradicted by real-world observations of both the distant past and more recent history.
In most cases I disapprove of flaunting academic credentials to strengthen an argument, since that is just appeal to authority. But in this case I feel it was relevant to your question.
I dealt with why the plaintiff has an advantage on the infringement issue in point #2.
2. You asked: "Do you actually follow the US legal system?"
I answered: "Yes". Please explain how that is not an answer to the question you asked.