Why would it be thrown out when it's how patent law works in that country? The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time. While I don't imagine it was ever Apple's intention to do something like that, the point still stands.
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.
The laws of the U.S do not apply throughout the entire world and override all other laws, despite what some people seem to think. A U.S. patent is only valid in the U.S. To protect your inventions around the world you need to file for patents in the appropriate regions - and for obvious reasons those patents are subject to the regional laws. The lack of a twelve-month grace period is one of the differences between EU and US patent law.
This decision doesn't even involve the U.S. patent: that patent has no validity in the European jurisdiction, just as the EU's decision has no significance in the U.S. This decision can't be "used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents" because it has nothing to do with them. EU patents, sure, but that isn't a problem - if an EU patent is invalid under EU law, that's the way it is. It certainly isn't a case for the ~U.S. government~.