Here I offer "criticism" (in a good way) and further thoughts toward refining your theory, which I believe "dovetails" off a theory Ease offered. What I'm doing to your theory is what I requested people do to mine - the delusional USPTO Contingency Theory (which, believe it or not, is still barely "alive" in the back of my pea brain). And it is what you respectfully requested - thank you.

I sure wish you'd broken this down into paragraphs, but heregoes:

"I’m thinking that the court settlement was separated from licensing in order to avoid asking judge Ward for any more time."

I have a little trouble wrapping my head around this, but if you "dig" through the thought, there may be something there. First, there is no possible separation of the licensing from the settlement. The license IS the settlement (our half of the deal). But then you have to ask, settlement for what? Well, what was the primary focus of the court proceeding? PAST INFRINGEMENT. How has our team dealt with past infringement in previous licensing? Per my understanding, thery gave a "pass" for past infringement, and licensed for FUTURE infringement. This, IMO, feeds your theory.

So, assume they gave a "pass" for past infringement, settling for court costs and legal fees (a thought which IMO is supported by the 10Q). Then there remains the issue of FUTURE infringement - which fits nicely with you guys' conjecture, and the "maybe" purpose of the MOU.

I'm going to try and break my thoughts down into multiple posts for easier consumption.... More to come.

SGE