To me, the language means POET has licensed the tech, as the licensor, to some other entity, as the licensee. Doesn't mean all of the tech, and certainly doesn't mean they've licensed it exclusively and for any and all uses. License agreements are carefully drafted to be specific to avoid, as best as possible, costly legal battles.
It's probably just as likely to me that's what it means (Poet is the licensor to some entity), as it is that Poet is licensing the tech from GT. GT may have his name on the patent on the inventor (I believe patents in the US, anyway, require that the inventor be on there, rather than the company), but the patent belongs to POET, as does the fruits that flow therefrom. It can't be any other way when it comes to patents, or companies would be held hostage by their employee inventors, not to mention other issues that would arise, as who succeeds to the patent rights.
