Here is his conclusion:
The Court's... reasoning is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory with the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID.
Via The Panda's Thumb, who points out the following:
Most often, Behe’s answers consist of simply repeating the arguments he made at trial, as if the Judge was just hard-of-hearing instead of utterly unconvinced by them. And when Behe does try to explain himself, the outcome is often worse.
But go ahead, read it for yourself.