The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement

I think that's the best outcome possible - the "procedural grounds" were that Philip Morris had no standing to bring such a case, and that it was an abuse of the process for Philip Morris to attempt to rearrange its affairs specifically to allow one component of the firm to bring such a case.

The point of ISDS arbitration (which this was) is to provide a venue for companies to deal with capricious behaviour by states they've invested in (e.g. sell you permits to drill for oil, the moment you find oil, confiscate the oil wells), not to prevent states from doing anything that might reduce profits. In this case, PM was told that they were abusing the process by filing for compensation, because they had plenty of warning that such behaviour by Australia was expected, and they indeed restructured before plain packaging came in with a view to meeting the requirements the treaty sets out for ISDS - thus proving that this wasn't unexpected or unpredictable, but was in fact a normal business risk.