No, they didn't. The idea that WotC could revoke the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a because the word "irrevocable" isn't in them was always smoke and mirrors. We had numerous attorneys here on these very boards who expressed a great deal of informed skepticism that WotC's declaration about revoking either of the two original OGLs would pass legal muster.
The
actual threat that WotC put forward was the
fear, uncertainty, and doubt involved regarding the OGL's status, largely because no matter how bogus WotC's claims were, putting the lie to them in court would have cost a small fortune in legal fees. Money, not sound legal reasoning, was always the scare factor.
That's why I don't understand why everyone's so sanguine about the SRD being in the Creative Commons. Publically making a completely unfounded claim about being able to "revoke" something (whether it's the OGL in its entirety or the SRD's entry into the CC), effectively daring anyone to prove them wrong by publishing with "revoked" materials and so leaving themselves open to a supposed civil suit, is a tactic that's just as viable for the SRD under the CC as it is for the OGLs (and no, that doesn't mean WotC would be threatening to revoke the entire CC, just the 5.1 SRD being usable under it).
(I've heard some people say that WotC threatening to do that with the CC would effectively be them threatening to kill the entire license, and so would see Microsoft and Apple step up to challenge them in court, but everything I've looked up suggests that the "it would kill the CC" idea is complete nonsense, and the "big tech companies would save the day" idea strikes me as wishful thinking.)
For more on the potential legal shortcomings with regard to the supposed sense of safety that CC offers, I'll direct people to
this post, made by an actual lawyer right here on EN World (with a good follow-up
over here).