But the more important thing is that the CA court ruled that they are co-inventors, and that ruling was upheld.  Fish and Moore can agree till the cows come home, and it wouldn't really matter as much (what are the facts surrounding this?).  The court rulings drive it home (i.e., the facts support it).

This really helps me on this whole issue.  I didn't realize that the CA courts had so ruled and upheld.  I thought the co-inventorship was "determined" via a settlement between Fish (PTSC) and Moore.  This must have happenned during a period where I was not so "close" to PTSC (focused on EDIG).  If it had been only via a settlement (outside the court), then the proposition of co-inventorship "held less water" (though would still be strong).  Court rulings (based on a review of the facts) make it rock solid IMO and, IMO, Ward would have no inclination to revisit. 

JMHO,

SGE