"In July 2013 outside counsel and the Company reached an agreement whereby this amount would only be paid in the event the Company receives royalty payment from the licensing of the two patents at issue in the R.J. Reynolds litigation between the date of the agreement and the expiration of the patents, and then only from royalty payments actually received by the Company on those patents. At this time the Company does not have any such license agreement in place.”
So whatever the reason or the motive of outside counsel to agree with those terms, it is clear the terms for obtaining additional payments are contingent on future licensing of the two tobacco patents in the RJR case, but those royalties do not necessarily have to come from RJR licensing. My assumption is RJR has a fully paid up license, but other tobacco companies obviously do not.
So why would other tobacco companies consider or need to take a license?
I would guess the FDA's forced mandate of reporting harmful constituents, including TSNA levels, would be the primary motivation for any tobacco company to use the best tobacco curing process possible, because the tobacco companies will be forced to report those harmful constituents to the public in the future.
Guess you missed prior discussions. The settlement gave RJR the right to use Star's curing process. IF RJR does so, then for liability's sake as well as other considerations (if FDA dragarses ever require TSNA listing) the other tobacco cos would have to also ... thus they would need to license the process from Star.