I believe I see a huge flaw in your argument. You say:

"The facts are that the Supreme court has (for over 100 years) ruled that down stream sales are "not" infringement."

Now I don't KNOW that to be true, but let's assume it is. Put that statement in proper context. IMO, the context is "if you've already nailed the supplier and received compensation for infringement from that supplier, you cannot rightfully seek compound compensation from those supplied".

Now let's look at whether your quoted statement is true. Why do some of our licensees cite warnings/advice to "downstream" companies that THEY supplied that they should seek their own license?

The only explanation I can come up with, again assuming your quote is true, is because the USA isn't the only "place" involved. We have comparable patents in Europe and Asia. USA laws/precedent may not apply.

Again, this all assumes your quote is true and correct.

Now I'll go a step further. If what you opine is true, why was ARM released from the litigation? They were the supplier of the chip designs. And they reference the '148 and '336 in their own patent applications.

More to the point, right up front, when ARM joined the action (just on the '584), pre-Markman, why weren't the Js dismissed on the '584 with prejudice? After all, per you, at least on the '584, the Js were in no way liable - ARM, and ARM alone, was.

JMHO,

SGE