Though I continue to agree that the issue is moot due to the settlement and Master Agreement, I can see where the defendants' counsel may be trying to go with this (perhaps to justify their effort).  The patents were originally submitted to the USPTO as one patent, not several.  The USPTO rejected, demanding that the multiple elements of the "giant" patent be broken down.  Sense Fish and Moore were indeed un-arguable co-inventors of the "giant" patent, sharing ownership, they were entered as co-inventors on the broken down patents as well (though, IMO, Fish was sole on the '336), as they may have been considered "integral".  This may be enough to the defenants' counsel to justify effort to their clients (along the lines of my prior post).

Still all moot, IMO.

SGE