Another commenter remarked on what might be the issue here. And that is the exact terms of the patent licenses used by MPEG-LA. Being a contract agreement, it might stipulate any terms really. And it seems they are frequently limited not just to specific patents, but also to detailed purposes (i.e. decode or encode H264.1 video streams, broadcast said streams, etc).
So, my bad for not realizing the detailed scope of the patent licensed used here. The situation might indeed be similar to the Oracle case, although those patent licenses are specific in a very different way.