It's a stark contrast from the protect-the-company-from-any-possible-contingency style most employment agreements are drafted in. Lawyers of the caliber Uber can afford don't make this sort of change accidentally.
It's clearly evidence that they anticipated a problem. I don't see any other way to spin it except that he covered himself because he knew there was a good chance he would be sued, and Uber, in its typical risk-hungry style, was willing to take the bet. Turns out it was a bad bet.
Seems like smoke and mirrors. Classic lawyer speak as both sides say it bolsters their case. Mildly interesting tidbit but clearly not the big hunk of red meat either side is waiting for. Excited for the October trial.