Absolutely not. Consider -for example- the crime of manslaughter. The relatives of the slain can often press civil charges against the killer for his conduct. That fact has _absolutely no bearing_ on the criminal charges available to and evidentiary standards for The State's criminal case against the killer.
That's an entirely different situation. In a case of man slaughter, the victim is dead (so he cannot seek relief). The state does not brings criminal charges to correct the wrong done to the relatives. It does it to correct the wrong done to the victim.
It actually _does_ mean that.
That would mean that by agreeing to a "reasonable compensation" they agree to not have any say in what is or isn't "reasonable." "Non-Discriminatory" is also difficult to parse because it has to mean like compensation in like situations. But every company's business model is different so it would be hard (although not impossible) to find 2 "like" situations.
You should also read at least the first few sections of the law that establishes the FTC's mandate to understand what it can and cannot do.
I am fairly sure this would be the 1st time that FTC brings monopoly abuse charges against someone trying to re-negotiate licensing of a granted patent.