Good insights.

To it I'd only suggest one thing (where Ron expresses some uncertainty), and that is that the people (attorneys) working in the Patents and Licensing world probably have the contract language down pat, recognizing the mere existence of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine. If it were their intent to pursue downstream infringers in addition to the source manufacturer, the appropriate language IMO would most certainly be there (assuming they have their act together at all, and I think they do).

Even in the LG/Quanta case in question, the language was there, just in the wrong place within the associated documentation, and apparently with no direct reference to it in the docs that were considered. At least that's my understanding.

I'd bet that a study of texts on Patent Licensing would reveal "boilerplate" language that should be included in licenses to address such circumstances. This ain't rocket science, and it wouldn't be like they had to dream it up because nobody ever ventured down this path before (and been bitten by the "ahshit snake"). Those snakes have a way of influencing "contracting evolution" (do I dare mention Patent Indemnification clause?).

FWIW and JMHO,

SGE