A "subtle loophole in a license" is practically a contradiction in terms. Courts don't enforce unlikely interpretations that run counter to the reasonable (and documented!) expectations of most if not all parties concerned just because some lawyer walks into a courtroom and announces they want to interpret it that way. Law is not a programming language, and it's not enforced by computers.
If anything, the change that was made by the company here is even worse because it's obviously ambiguous. What exactly does it mean for a patent claim to "exist"? Are we talking about patents already granted? Patents filed? Patents that might be filed?