Maybe the settlement was in terms of royalty rates. In such a case, the dollar amounts would not have been determined yet and would be determined based upon the analyses that would be preformed "in explicit detail" by TPL and would not have been summarized / aggregated at the time of settlement. Maybe the Js would be required to deliver an accurate & honest accounting of which products infringed. Judge Ward would still be involved to keep the Js honest. Further litigation would not be necessary in that case. Just oversight by JW. Remember JW had experienced previous head-butting and scheming legal tactics from Toshiba in a recent case and may anticipate BS from them and/or the other Js. A big "what if" Wouldn't it be something if the Js tried some sort of underhanded submission of deliverables that did not clearly state which of the past/current products infringed? The Judge would then be in a position to make any of the Js that did not play fair, pay through the nose. Just speculating here.

I am not disputing the possibility of a contingency based upon the USPTO re-exams. I just think the per product past & running royalties going forward is a more likely scenario.

Even if TPL / Alliacense were almost 100% certain they had the upper hand in the re-exams, the timing would have been too uncertain and open-ended for them to agree to such a thing IMO & there is always that miniscule risk of one of the examiners getting hung up on an unforeseen technicality. I don't think our side would have gone that route. Too risky and uncertain on several levels.