I think the bigger problem is the ability to sue unsophisticated end users, even when big fat suppliers, retailers or manufacturers exist and are easily sued. The only reason a patent holder would do that is to make the legal defense hard. This is a common troll tactic. Sue people with shady patents who can't mount a defense and avoid the big pockets who would invalidate the patent.
I may have read it incorrectly but didn't Lexmark sue a reseller, not an end-user?
I don't think it changes anything -- my thinking is that suing over what is likely a trivial change made to allow them to screw their customers by giving away the printer and hiding the true cost of ownership in obscenely priced ink by abusing[1] the patent system.
[1] Perhaps this practice is so common-place and blessed by the courts that this is what the "patent system" has become so it's not really "abuse", but if the patent system's design was to encourage expensive R&D by allowing for a brief period of monopoly then it's rarely used for its original purpose.
