Loop- agreed, the Court did not rule on merits of Federal's $ claim. However, the Court did RULE that IDCC's arguments were unconvincing as to bad faith, unenforceability, invalidity, and lack of consideration.
And, given what the Court revealed from the RA, it seems to me, broad brush, my inference, that IDCC agreed to "fully reimburse" Federal and that all the other matters of 10%, 4 years, etc. were simply intended to drag out the timing of this "full reimbursement".
So, my inference, based on what the Court revealed is written in the RA, is that IDCC agreed to reimburse Federal "fully". So, while the $ amount due to Federal was not adjudged by the Court, I can read the language in the RA, which seems very plain to me.
And, I can also infer and opine now that IDCC is making really INCREDIBLE arguments for its side. Further, the Court has already very easily brushed aside IDCC's initial incredible arguments.
So, now, just based on the written terms we do know from the RA and the Court's ruling that the RA is valid and enforceable, I read the RA to mean "full reimbursement", spread over time, but not capped, in the event of a settlement.
That is just how I read it and handicap this fight, based on the current information. Of course, I wish it were a different story.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
