Unfortunately, the jury is very much not in the crypto field. As far as they know, he's just some guy who claimed to invent something, and the plaintiffs are making the most of it.
Similarly, aside from the ad homs about educational pedigree, the line about not being the "real" inventor is pretty critical. The point is "secret" (i.e. unpublished) inventions don't count as prior art in invalidity arguments. So even if you accept that GCHQ invented public key crypto, Diffie's patent is still valid. I imagine IP Nav wants to argue that private demos of Lotus Notes don't count as prior art.
Unfortunately, the jury is very much not in the crypto field. As far as they know, he's just some guy who claimed to invent something, and the plaintiffs are making the most of it.
Similarly, aside from the ad homs about educational pedigree, the line about not being the "real" inventor is pretty critical. The point is "secret" (i.e. unpublished) inventions don't count as prior art in invalidity arguments. So even if you accept that GCHQ invented public key crypto, Diffie's patent is still valid. I imagine IP Nav wants to argue that private demos of Lotus Notes don't count as prior art.