I keep seeing this, but IMO it simple doesn't apply.  Ownership rights were never actually tried in court through fruition.  The court's declaration was a reflection of an out-of-court settlement (i.e., shared ownership was NOT determined by the court, but through compromise of the affected parties).  The court's declaration was an element of the settlement.

Don't get me wrong.  I believe bringing the issue of ownership or claims of patent invalidity due to a dispute about true inventorship to the instant litigation is DOA. 

I see no way, no matter how much paper is thrown on the table, that it could be proven the development of each of these patents was not a cooperative effort performed by two, at the time, absolute allies in the endeavor.  Two smart guys working together, consulting eachother, prompting eachother, debating ways to make something work. 

Even the Fish Clock.  Did Moore push Fish in the direction that enabled this?  Did Fish go to Moore and say "do you think this would work?" (i.e., if Moore said no, would Fish have pursued it?).  And if he'd posed that question (which I would think he most certainly did), would there not have been a detailed discussion, adding to concept refinement and how it "fits" with the other things they were doing?  Would these things quailfy as a "contribution" to the development of the patent(s)?  I would think so, and I'm only talking in the simplest of terms.  How could this possibly be dis-proven? 

Now throw in the fact that Fish and Moore have formally agreed that that all the patents were cooperatively developed, and the court has acknowledged that agreement.

I hope Judge Ward sees it as I do....

IF he doesn't, it'll be a further clue that I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE