Jan '24: “...not be permitted to imply that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto”

That quote is misleading having read the link. The guy claiming to be Satoshi has to win an explicit judgment from the court that he actually is first, then the others can no longer imply he isn't (since in that scenario, the court would have found he is, they have to treat it as a fact). That has not happened as of the date of the document.