Yeah the question remains as to whether the Fury X cooler is using the infringing design or not, but if it is an infringing unit, its pretty cut and dry patent infringement. Like I say though, AMD likely has in the contract with CM that in the case of patent infringement the seller must provide a non infringing alternative or buy a license on the buyer's (AMD's) behalf. This is a standard clause in big contracts for things like that. I do this for a living.
The word "direct infringement" is a term of art and has a specific meaning in that context, which is that the alleged infringer's device literally does the things as claimed by the patent without having to combine references under 35 usc 103 (obviousness). Since CM just lost their infringement case on various models of their AIO coolers, if one of those AIO coolers is on the Fury X then using the infringing device is also infringement. 35 usc 271(a). "Indirect infringement" is another term of art which refers to 35 usc 271 (b) and (c) also known as induced infringement and contributory infringement.
An interesting side note since you are reading along, is check on the actual judgment (filing 249), page 5-6 about the experts chosen by both sides to testify. Then check page 16-17. Looks like Asetek picked a really good expert and CM picked an okay one. The judge and jury both gave asetek nearly everything they asked for because their expert seems like he was a lot better. Indicative of how it can all come down to that guy's resume versus the other guy's resume
Is this the same assumption that because AMD "invented" hbm, they have an exclusivity deal?
Not saying or doubting your expertise. Just saying we've seen AMD make massive missteps, before, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't as airtight of a contract as it needs to be.