I doubt it's that simple. A breach of the contract is not an all or nothing thing once there's been an exchange of money. IH have already fully paid the 10.5 million that was required for the IP, for example (by my understanding). And if the 89 million are extracted from them via the court case, they will then be fully in compliance once more if the court finds that they had been in breach. So even if IH had breached first and then must pay damages, the court case will presumably be bring the situation back to the point where IH have the license and are in compliance. And then IH would have full rights to the QuarkX technology, which Rossi will have to divulge in good faith. And Rossi will not be able to simply cut ties and pursue its development while excluding IH.
So unless the court voids the license, Rossi will not be escaping working with IH, even with the QuarkX technology, by this reading of things. I doubt the court will void the license if IH have to pay the 89 million dollars. I doubt the court will void the license unless Rossi pays IH the 10.5 million dollars back, as well as incidental costs from the Doral affair.
Someone who knows something about contract law may be able to chime in here and elucidate the matter.
(This argument goes beyond my assumptions in more than one way, but I'm just following a hypothetical.)
It might sound weird, but to my knowledge IH have not argued that the QuarkX doesn't work; they would be unable to do so, presumably, because they haven't been kept in the loop about it. That makes their position an easy one in a future lawsuit: "Rossi hasn't transferred any knowledge about the QuarkX, so that's the first thing we ask the court to help out with so that we can proceed with exploring commercialization of it as is our right with the IP we acquired."
So I think arguments that assume that Rossi can cut ties with IH and press forward with commercialization of the QuarkX technology lose sight of this point. The ties to IH are strengthened if IH end up having to pay 89 million dollars, for such an outcome will surely be accompanied by their retaining their license.
Rossi's best get out here (if IH allow it) is to pay them as much as needed to settle and retain the Ecat IP. Then he can claim to everyone that he was punished by the US legal system but has emerged with honour and IP intact for his QuarkX conquering of the world. I'd guess this will not fly since IH will not want to see such a distraction and anyway it is not clear he will have enough money. But he can hope for a large-pocketed new QuarkX investor who will pay to bail him out. I can't believe that Rossi now will want to reinvent himself. LENR is too good an area for his PR talents.
IH have one problem which lies at the heart of their stance - but luckily for them it is peripheral to this case. (It is not peripheral for the many web watchers, which is one of the reasons web comment is often so skewed). They are looking for LENR and cannot therefore be negative about their own prospects. But, when fighting with vapourware merchants like Rossi - OK - maybe there is no-one lese quite like Rossi - they would find it convenient to be more negative about LENR generally (aligning themselves with the rest of the world). I'm not sure in Court how they will play this. We have a few sentences in an MSJ with anti-LENR language, but that does not mean much.
Would Darden (and Woodford) ever have been sniffing around LENR without the publicity and eye-catching claims of Rossi? I don't know. Again, they would not perhaps want to admit this is the case - though it might be. Equally it might not be - I don't see we have any information either way. Dewey etc is welcome to set me right. I'm not sure he will, were they inclined to be open the current Court proceedings must make that more difficult.
I'm straying here into negative for IH and sort-of positive for Rossi comment. But, it is what it is, and I fully admit this post to be speculative as guessing other people's motivation way in the past always is.