How about if one of the parties doesn't comply with the simplest of terms?  For example, what if Toshiba didn't pay us as agreed (even a one-time payment)?  The dispute would continue/be renewed.  Ward would want this heard in his courtroom.  I would think that this specific language is "boilerplate" - standard inclusion. 

Like a lot of "legal-ese", alot of these words are just there for no significant reason, IMO, as the intent is merely to point out the obvious.  Think about it.  If there are any problems with any party fulfilling the commitments they made in the settlement which ended this court proceeding, they should be addressed in the court where the settlement arose.  If a party attempted to pursue the new dispute (on the same matter) in a different US court, I would think that the new court solicited to hear the case would refer the parties to the EDoT (Ward's) courtroom.  And if they didn't, I strongly suspect that Judge Ward would have something to say about it (like "what the heck are you doing?").  And if none of those things happened, and the new dispute were heard in a different court, it would probably be ripe for appeal depending on outcome.  But inclusion of this language (pointing out the obvious) absolutely removes any alternative paths.

Also keep in mind the "without prejudice" language.  Same general theme as above, IMO.  The renewed dispute would ultimately very likely IMO be heard in the originating court, whether this jurisdiction language was in there or not.

So there are a couple of suggestions....FW they're worth.

JMHOs,

SGE