Actually, I think dellbird hit the nail on the head on this subject.   There is little sense in trying to retry inventorship, as that is a lost legal cause.  But some of the AC correspondence would quite possibly discuss prior art, obviousness, and different ways around potential obstacles during the prosecution of the patent.  Perhaps that is what they are trying to get into the trial.  And while that sort of correspondence is probably not unusual, I would suspect that in front of a jury it could be damaging.  Perhaps trying to get at the AC privileged info through a back door based on inventorship?  I doubt judge Ward would allow it, but I guess it is worth a shot.  Leave no stone unturned.  All IMHO.  Opty