True, the court did find that. But the law they used only requires "willful ignorance", so while different, I suspect that the same law will be used again - especially since it is the only law I know of that defines the rights and responsibilities for an internet service provider (not just providers of connectivity, but also websites etc.).
If OBT is found to be completely unaffiliated with any websites or organizations that do actively commit copyright infringement, then proving "willful ignorance" is that much harder. For example, drug lords may use GPG, but unless you can prove that whoever wrote GPG is in cahoots with said drug lords, they can't be held responsible for aiding and abetting. (Even then, the GPG author would probably not, strictly speaking, be accused of the mere act of writing crypto software.)
The suspicion is this: (1) The people behind TPB say they sold the website, but haven't been able to provide any contracts, money transfers or any trace of said sale. (2) OBT is run by the same, or nearly the same, bunch of people.
The case will be much stronger if those two points can be proven.
An analogy would be this: If I say to person A that "I'm going to kill Joe Bloke", buy a gun at place B, a map at place C and ask person D where I can find Joe Bloke, I'm probably the only one that can be held responsible. But if it then turns out that person A runs the gun shop, map shop and is the same as person D, well, A has problems.