Username or EmailPassword
I would guess the argument would be that the copy was never actually sold; it was licensed. In fact, the judge seemed to jump through quite a few weird hoops to "prove" that. And since it was licensed, not sold, there is no right of first sale (because something that's licensed isn't sold), and if there's no right of first sale, then what's in the EULA doesn't contradict it. I don't agree, but I'd guess that's the argument.
Also, as someone else pointed out, this is the 9th Circuit... they get overturned a lot. Although so does every other Circuit Court (the Supreme Court doesn't tend to take on too many cases it feels were judged correctly, so more than 3/4 of all cases the Supreme Court takes on end up overturning Circuit Court decisions), but the 9th Circuit decisions just seem to be a bit crazy at times.