Because their contract/agreement was based on use

Because their contract/agreement was based on use of Strikeforce’s IP, involving patents that had been granted. Unless there was a clause in the agreement that obviated their obligation, should some court years later insensibly fail to uphold their patent rights in unrelated litigation. But they had already been using Strikeforce’s product FOR YEARS, so obviously they have to pay for that.

Strikeforce used public written statements to convey to potential investors the existence of that agreement with ACS, which was worth $9 to $11 million, for example, depending on the year it was to be paid. So if they do not enforce it, then it has acted as a fraud upon investors who relied on it in making their decision to invest.