The key there is that the patent-infringing items were never properly authorized by the patent holder. But a patent holder should not be able to prevent the resale of items he has previously licensed appropriately. Nor, IMHO, should he be able to attach conditions to his license: a sale is a sale, and once someone has sold something his interest in it should end.
Which is no doubt why companies want to switch from sales to rentals. If I rent you a toaster (or rent software, or rent an e-book), then there's no sale, and I can keep my interest.
