This does not have to do with the exhaustion doctrine (it allows reselling) or the equivalents doctrine (if A is equivalent to B and A is patented, basically B gets protected too).
So the question as I get it is, do I infringe a patent if I sell a product directed at infringing patents?
The answer is, yes, if that's it's only use.
See for example here: https://www.law360.com/articles/429584/divided-infringement-of-system-claims-after-centillion
(Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications International Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010))
The Court also found that "[s]upplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system."
The Federal Circuit also noted that the only way the service provider could have been found to have "used" the system claims was if it was vicariously liable for the actions of its customers. The court explained, however, because it was entirely the decision of the customer to install and operate the software, the service provider could not be found vicariously liable for its customers’ actions.
The second part states that if you can be found vicariously liable for your customers infringements -> if you sell something knowing it can only/will be used to infringe a patent, you are infringing.
If however the possibility of infringement is only a side effect (for example you sell glasses, somebody uses the lenses in an infringing microscope), you are not held responsible, but your customer is.
I referenced the article only to cite the part I did as the court stated there that supplying something that can be used to infringe a patent is no infringment. (I didn't register there and could read the article, but its not working anymore, don't know what happened there).
So yes, qwest products were found not to be infringing because of that, but the court says (and that is concludent with what I remembered when reading your question), that IF somebody directs a prdocut only or primarily at infringing or should know that it will be used for infringement, they may be held responsible too.
I'll have another try at exactly understanding what you are asking and elaborating further in that direction:
If a company A sells a product, let's say a sensor. And company B patented a system using sensors connected over special cables made out of handwavium and a unit registering all data.
Customer C buys the system with some sensors and the unit from B and adds a Sensor from A. Then C can be found to infringe B's patent by using a non licensed sensor and therefore a not completly licensed system.
In reality B might be selling the system to be used with other sensors, basically giving away a license to use their base stations in arbitrary systems, but they don't have to.
A however is only liable if for examplethey sell a sensor that can be accessed only this way, accessed only, so they knew that C would have to infringe B's patent in order to use A's sensor.