Good point..no, great point..

I think that is where the whole "business resolution" comes in to play..perhaps it is a joint venture or partnership with the J's that may be subject to a future contingency..that may be a current unknown as well..many have postulated the USPTO review in our favor..that is one possiblity..this I know for sure..never discount the ability of an attorney(s) to be cleaver or sneaky in this regard..not offense meant to our lawyer folks out there..and keep in mind that these were attorneys working collectively..they may be well versed in how they should approach this issue..and may have been working from a prior template of past performance - it is probably not the first time the Js infringed in this manner..that was also subject to an NDA..such that we are never fully aware of what was done in the past, present, or future.