I understand that both Shaw and Hamilton worked for Higgins in the prosecution of the patents and as such their testimony should be covered by the Higgins-Moore ACP.

Moore/TPL did "scream" and the 9th Circuit heard the screams and found/confirmed the Higgins-Moore ACP.

Central to the ACP debate was the fact that Fish waived it whereas Moore didn't. Moore complied fully and legally in proctecting his ACP and was so found  by the Courts.

The J's are now attempting to overturn the earlier Higgins-Moore ACP ruling using Shaw and Hamilton. Without Higgins(Shaw and Hamilton)there is no USPTO issue.

However, the USPTO will have been advised as to the J's claims and TPL will no doubt have it covered(see the USPTO case file-wrap).

Be well