You've asked why a couple of times (re: the defendants pursuing the whole Higgins thing), so I'll take a shot as to why....

The only thing I can think of is to just try, in trial, to make all the jurors sit up with pointed ears, deep frown, and head tilted about 30 degrees to one side, while uttering, in unison, "ugh?". And while trying to figure out all the associated BS (e.g., Fish the marketing guy and the "Fish Clock"), they might miss other testomony of real significance. Bog it down, drag it out, baffle 'em with BS.

That's the only reason I can come up with, but I KNOW nuttin'!

One correction I believe in this whole conversation - I do not believe the CA courts ever actually ruled on inventorship, only on Higgins' ability to testify. However, I would think that Ward would see that opening this up (as well as the Shaw issues) is a non-starter/non-issue, and that the USPTO has already done what it was going to do. So while I don't believe, IF Ward were to allow this non-sense, that it could possibly result in overturning anything done in the CA courts, it WOULD amount to overturning long-ago decided issues at the USPTO (here note that, to my knowledge, none of this stuff has been submitted to the USPTO as a basis for re-exam, so IMO if they really thought it held any water, that would be the place to direct their concerns - at least concurrent with the instant court motions).

If Ward acted NOW in our favor regarding those motions, it would be ....

Ex-cell-ent!

SGE