"One thing that stood out as a result of the LG/Quanta case was the issue of the terminology used in a licensing agreement (in our case) with a chip supplier. It seems the SC concluded that if proper language were used expressing the intent that the license did not flow to the chip supplier's customers, those customers would still be on the hook."
I agree. It expressly allowed terms in a contract to point to intent.
The wording in the AMD contract expressly stated that any customers of AMD were not infringing. Patriot gave the store away with that poor agreement. What TPL did with Intel would be interesting.IMO the Intel deal is different. Why would they make the following statement on their website unless there were conflict:
"In light of these early, important licensing endorsements by Intel and AMD, the market demanded greater clarity and certainty. Since modern systems contain many microprocessors, system manufacturers would remain exposed until all their parts vendors obtained licenses. Indeed, system manufacturers would be exposed not only to infringement claims but also to supply chain and product design disruptions.
The MMP Portfolio Licensing Program therefore focuses licensing requirements and royalty collection on the finished "system-level" product. A royalty-free MMP Portfolio license is also available to manufacturers of chips and other unfinished goods."
