Having reread the original article, I see that UA did in fact raise their offer after he asked for a higher-than-previously-agreed-upon royalty:

  For the next three months, Under Armour refused a 
  face-to-face meeting but did make concessions, raising 
  its percentage and throwing in a monthly advance. Hann 
  held out for higher numbers. He fielded interest from a 
  new set of investors and became more wary of Under 
  Armour. “I feel like the mouse dancing with the bear,” he 
  said. “No matter how careful the bear is, the mouse 
  better watch out.” In late October 2010, Kevin Haley, 
  senior vice-president of innovation, took over the 
  project from Fulks. Haley offered to put the licensing 
  negotiation on hold and renew the option agreement at 
  $15,000 per month. The implication was that this would 
  allow them to work together like old times.

  Hann rebuffed the offer, believing Under Armour was 
  bluffing and it was a way of avoiding a licensing 
  agreement. In early December 2010, Under Armour’s 
  attorney delivered the news: The company decided to move 
  in a different direction. Hann’s work with the company 
  was over.

The article doesn't say whether they "higher numbers" that Hann was trying to get out of UA were the out-of-bounds ones he countered with originally or simply within the high end of the original range.

That would be interesting to know.