While some have postulated that the "contingency" clause that began appearing in some of the SEC filings was in some way tied to the the litigation or USPTO issues, I think, with the obvious exception of the recent licenses that were directly tied to the ITC ID, there is a much simpler and more probable "source" for that language being included.

If you look in the either the Acer or Amazon Agreements (Amazon link is here:)

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/itc13/ITC%20Amazon%20Agreement.pdf

you'll see under the Definitions section 1.1, a reference to an "After Acquired Entity". It essential says that if the Licensee acquires a company after the license period, that has more than $250M in annual sales of microprocessor based products, then that we would be due a "supplement" lump sum payment prorated based on the original license agreement calculations.

While it's clear in the short term, we might entice a settlement based on a very short triggered contingency like the ITC ID, and that language would apply in those cases as well, I doubt seriously that any corporation like Toshiba, or Bosch, for example, would have signed licenses 3-5 years ago, that were in some way contingent on the outcome of some future legal battle of an unrelated entity, like the HTC NDoC ruling, or the USPTO outcome over which they had no control or acurate time table, much less an ability to forsee and enumerate the effect of claims constructions, or revisions to claim language through re-exams.