FWIW...I asked this question of two PA's back when this information was made available to us. Both pretty much were in agreement.

First, both stated they would be very surprised if either side agreed to postpone settlement and base it on a future event (reexam). Too much risk for either party. This doesn't mean that it didn't happen, they just felt that based on their experience with prior patent cases, the chances were slim to none.

Second, they felt the MOU was in place in case something changed with the agreement made when the case was resolved. I asked for an example. The example given was let's say it was found that of the products that NEC produced, 20% were found to infringe on our patents. Than at some future date, NEC changed the way they develop/manufacture their products, and we now felt that 50% infringed. The MOU was in place to get in front of Ward, present the changes, and obtain a ruling/reward.

Good luck everyone.