It all comes down to what the contract and license agreement...

It all comes down to what the contract and license agreement said, which nobody except Aquabotix and Apium have access to.

I highly doubt Aquabotix is intentionally withholding royalty payments whilst knowing that it is illegal to do so.

After giving that court case a read, my immediate assumption is that the wording of the license agreement may be in the favor of Aquabotix, and that Apium could be frustrated because they may have signed off on a broadly worded agreement. A common mistake amongst small businesses.

"26. The intent of the drafters of the License Agreement was that “units for testing” that are exempt from royalty payments were limited to units that Aquabotix provided without compensation. Thus, Aquabotix is in breach of the License Agreement based on its refusal to pay royalties that are due."

The intent versus what's written in the license agreement. Those are two entirely different things, and the law obviously favours the license agreement that is signed. So we can only assume that Aquabotix has met it's contractual obligations.

When this clear up, it will be a massive de-risking.