So, the one definitive prediction he had so far is that a patent case would end in a royalty? Forgive me if I don't take that as a sign of an insightful commenter.
I gave two examples, you picked out one, and you appear to assume that this is the only time Muller has been right about anything. Somehow, it does not seem to me like you are on a dispassionate quest for truth here.
However, just in case you are: Apple and Nokia were both suing each other over various patents, and had various defenses. Often such cases end in a cross-licensing deal with little or no money changing hands. He correctly assessed that in this case Nokia had the upper hand and that Apple would end up paying. That conclusion was not obvious to casual observers at the time.
I've noticed that Florian Muller is more skilled at covering his own behind, rather than predicting patent litigation outcomes.
Every prediction he makes is hedged with a statement about how the alternate outcome is possible "even though many don't believe it's likely". Whatever his preferred outcome, he will make the stronger case for that.
Hedging your predictions with qualifying statements is something that any good lawyer will tend to do, and also just plain intellectually honest since predictions about legal processes are rarely 100% certain.
However, just in case you are: Apple and Nokia were both suing each other over various patents, and had various defenses. Often such cases end in a cross-licensing deal with little or no money changing hands. He correctly assessed that in this case Nokia had the upper hand and that Apple would end up paying. That conclusion was not obvious to casual observers at the time.