settling
If Apple wanted to license the name on the terms Cisco was offering, Apple could still do it. Cisco was blindsided by the announcement and is trying to make Apple show its cards by filing suit.
Filing suit is cheap. If you are using inside counsel, the incremental cost is miniscule (hundreds, not thousands, of dollars). It's a great way to get people to show their cards, as you then can use discovery rules to get direct answers to questions, and discover whether you have a suit. Under the American rule (each party bears own attorney's fees), this is a cheap route. Under the British rule (loser pays, and no US-style discovery), this would make no sense.
The questions I have are
(1) Why is the name important?
(2) What is wrong with Cisco's claim that Apple wants to go this route rather than take a license? (or, what were Cisco's apparently too-onerous terms?)
(3) Who is making the guts of the phone ? :-)
Never reach court? It's in court the minute it's filed; it just may never reach trial. :-) I sorta don't think failing to license the name prior to launch is a mistake. I think it is a strategic decision made in light of the advice of counsel under the facts known at the time. Might turn out to be the cheap way out, and may turn out to be an embarrassment. Can't say, as I have not got the facts known to the parties.
Take care,
--Tex.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
