I think the SAAC argument (contract via fraud) could well apply in this case. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that just because there is a written signed document thats the end of it. Sure, it's an uphill battle against a written vs verbal contract. But the history of Shelby business dealings (not 100% straight up with folks) and the history of the 'UNENFORCED never talked about again license agreement' is an arguable point. Add to that a number of people that would testify as to what they heard, hand shake deals, etc and it becomes an arguable point.
SAAC is guilty of being naive and trusting, when Shelby told them it was no big deal, not to worry, just keeps my lawyers happy I guess they actually believed him!
And for the next nine years they were right, Shelby did nothing with the license.