Here's an archive of the article without the paywall:
https://archive.md/NRbwxDisappointing journalism really from somewhere like the WSJ. You would expect them to do some basic fact checking.
For bitcoiners, there is only one piece of evidence that could conclusively prove the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto: the private key that controls the account where Nakamoto stored the one million bitcoins. Anyone claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto could show that he or she has them by moving even a fraction of a coin out of it.
So much wrong in that paragraph, from the fact that ownership of a key does not prove identity, to the fact that we don't know how many coins Satoshi actually owns, to the fact that they aren't stored on a single address (I don't even know what "account" refers to in this context), to the fact he would probably just sign a message rather than make a transaction, do the fact the genesis coins can't even be used in a transaction.
Still, in terms of the court case itself, I've been ignoring known criminal CSW for a while now, but I'm pretty sure the judges in this case have said repeatedly that they are not there to decide whether or not known fraudster CSW (+/- anyone else) is Satoshi. Regardless, only an idiot would conclude that the identity of Satoshi would be proven in a court. If you want to prove you are Satoshi, you first sign a message from the relevant private key.
If you can do that, then we can examine your behavior, your knowledge, your writings, your actions, etc., to see if they are in keeping with those of Satoshi. Known identity thief CSW has failed miserably, completely, and repeatedly on both counts.