And this is what one of those articles about the SC decision pointed to - it's not a patent infringement issue, it's a contractual issue.

IMO, the contractual issue of INTENT could be argued two ways - both in our favor. First, and most obvious, is that the language is (probably) clear - the license is not intended to flow to the licensees customers. If this argument fails, the fall back argument could be "well, that was OUR intent with that language". For a contract to be fully binding, there must have been a true "meeting of the minds", where the intent of both parties is clearly understood. So if OUR intent with such language was not understood by the licensee to be our intent, there was no "meeting of the minds" and the intent was not clearly understood.

While IMO, the first argument (above) is strong, the second is weaker/more difficult - but possible. From the Contracts Guy.

SGE