Baba is quite right that no one knows how the claim sticks. However, companies will generally choose to avoid the conflict because the response from the government would likely be to sanction employess and freeze bank accounts which banks will fall in-line with.  Then it becomes a giant legal fight at great cost as to the legitimacy of US law applying extra-territorially - thus most will avoid.  

Just read this part of TPower's post - this is the nut I am looking at when i raise the issue:

 Its new rule prohibits anyone from selling any chips to Huawei, custom or not, if these were produced with American technology. This covers practically every chipmaker in the world, including those in China, thus closing loopholes that the global chip industry’s high-powered lawyers have found in the earlier edicts.

The entire global semiconductor manufacturing industry (yes including TSMC) uses US equipment and software in their fabs.  It is possible (though not probable) that some lines have absolutely zero US equipment (look at the major manufacturers of equipment and software - AMAT, BRKS, MKSI, KLIC, PLAB, LRCX....), however the design of the action is to make it impossible to supply Huawei.

I find the action on the part of the US government a little repugnant (pretty much liek Canada is a national security threat in aluminum it is using th ewrong tool for the job). However I recognise the reality and I am hoping that POET can get to announcing the tier one North American supplier soon so that it clears the air.  The idea behind starving Huawei is a net boost to all the other manufacturers of equipment and the sooner we get into them the better. 

Assuming we get to a Q&A on the AGM, I am happy to pose this question so that we have a straight answer.