The preponderance of the evidence is that it IS the J's.  Otherwise, TPL/PTSC will have broken from a 3 year precedent of announcing license deals when made.

Furthermore, by listing it this way in a PR, they would IMO be flirting with danger with respect to the SEC's Reg FD as it clearly implies that these are the J's licenses they're referring to since no other deals have been announced that would account for these extra 2 or more licenses.  If they withheld announcing other deals after consistently not having withheld those types of announcements, but yet wrote PR's that clearly led people to believe that they were in fact referring to the J's in this case they leave themselves open to liability to claims of misleading the public.

PTSC/TPL were clearly muzzled as part of the settlement.  The subsequent PR's and other avenues are the best way for them to release bits an peices of the settlement info in the context of other similar information so that they can't be held in violation of the confidentiality agreement.  So based on this, I AM sure that this is the J's deals they are referring to.