The claim appears straight forward and has nothing to do about...

The claim appears straight forward and has nothing to do about whether SLA manufactured or supplied anything under the DA.

The allegation is that SLA said they owned certain intellectual property (IP) and that therefore BPO could only use the IP if BPO paid a bunch of many to SLA and entered to a contract.

BPO now say that SLA did not own the IP. Supposedly this would mean that anyone, including BPO, could use it, and extract or manufacture without SLA being able to stop them. No one owns it.

Thus BPO say they could have done what they did by themselves and without entering the agreement. They say SLA misrepresented that SLA owned IP.

Sounds pretty simple question of fact. SLA has patents to cover the subject IP, they win. They don't, BPO win.

my view for what its worth.