"and the defense of the defendants. Mr. Fish was not a(the) inventor, he worked in sale and marketing. I think, anyone with two brains cells can put together who is behind this."

I think what they may be attempting to do is proving or trying to invalidate the original filing by claiming fraud. Since Moore seems to be getting all the credit for these patents and Patriot and Fish were not sucessful in their original case. They may be saying that having Fish claim to be a co-inventor was a false statement on an application and it should be invalidated.

Highly speculative on my part and just my own opinion. But I can't think of any other reason for them to say that Fish is not the inventor.