I posted on this quite a bit the last time the issue was raised, and frankly, I didn't get it then and I still don't get it now. IMO, Bill has given a good summation of the point in his post at 9:03 this evening --- I don't have access to my prior posts, but I'll do my best to recall what I previously said. Remember, I'm not a patent attorney, so it is always possible that there is some technical point of patent law that controls this issue and of which I would not be knowledgeable.

As a result of the prior litigation, the Master Agreement came into existence, in which Fish and Moore each acknowledge the other as being at least a co-inventor of the patents. In the present case, PTSC holds its status through Fish, while TPL's status arises through Moore. While I suppose the defendants could be trying to assert that either Fish or Moore is not an inventor, I am unaware of anyone else other than Fish and Moore who could be said to occupy that category, nor have I seen the defendants identify someone else by name as being "an" inventor, much less "the" inventor.

Based upon the above, it seems to me that if even if it is somehow proved that Fish is not an inventor, then Moore would occupy that category 100%, and vice-versa. Further, since both are, by representation, plaintiffs in the case (i.e., through PTSC and TPL), and since both are bound to each other by the Master Agreement, proving that one of them is not an inventor would seem to have no practical significance. In other words, in the hypothetical example that Fish is proved not to be an inventor, Moore is then the 100% inventor --- but he must still act in accord with the Master Agreement, which is the law between him and Fish, i.e., he cannot cut Fish/PTSC out of the picture.

As to the testimony of Fish and/or Moore, I am not unduly concerned. You can bet that both gave depositions in the prior litigation, and that each declared himself to be an inventor. Furthermore, you can bet that they have also given depositions in the present case, and that TPL's attorneys worked with them closely in order to prepare for such. They are thus "locked" in a general sense, but more significantly, we can be assured they didn't testify someone else was the inventor. So again, as I see it, at least one of them must be the inventor, and as long as that is accurate, proving that the other is not an inventor shouldn't have any effect on the case.

Hope this helps. Good luck to all.