Not trying to be argumentative, but in this, there is no indication in what you posted that the actual license agreements were signed prior to the MOU being created. I admit that there is an agreement to dismiss, but that agreement could well BE the outlined in and be the MOU, and be one of the sealed documents referenced as Exhibits.

I think it's possible that the MOU outlines the agrement that ultimately settled the case. It could state that, based on general terms, each company would license the MMP, and that settlment is contingent on ALL companies ultimately executing licenses, and that in it there are general or specific terms for each license to be signed by each J entity so that they know they have the framework to be able to agree to this, but not the specific licenses yet. The SIGNED order to dismiss is where the MOU first appears, so that could simply be JW asserting his control to make sure that if anyone breaches the terms of the MOU, then it will affect all of them, or that he at least has the jurisdiction to enforce it, so that it doesn't come through the system in another form if one of these parties were to ultimately balk.