The problem is one of linguistics.
As far as I know Leica has nothing to do with sensors. They don't design them, nor do they manufacture them. Leica outsources it's sensors.
At the same, Leia is deeply involved with engineering the best possible sensor assembly. The sensor itself may be the main component, but the micro lenses, color-filter array (even the Leica monochrome cameras have a CFA, but it's not an RGB CFA), the IR filter and the protective color glass. These components Leica specifies play a significant role in technical IQ.
The issue: is will Leica fund the R&D, engineering and manufacturing costs involved with producing a M9 IR-filter/cover-glass component for the M9 sensor assembly. It seems unlikely the CCD sensor in existing M9 sensor assemblies will be reused. Instead the exact same Kodak-desgined CCD sensor (now built by another manufacturer) would be part of a new sensor assembly unit. The new sensor assembly could have either a different IR filter (that is not degrade quickly when exposed to humidity) or an improved cover-glass coating formulation to insure humidity can't reach the IR filter (unless the cover glass is abused).
Leica will never have access to a different CCD sensor. CCD sensors are rarely used in new still-imafing products. Their use and development is for specialized industrial and scientific applications. The cost per unit would be extremely high because only M9 owners value CCD sensors (actually they value the CCD sensor assembly).
If the Leica M9 sensor assembly unit was not the value-added component, M9 proponents would also claim other CCD cameras, such as the Nikon D200, produced aesthetically superior color rendering, etc. Of course, they do not.
I can't think of any technical basis for how CCD pinned-diodes can convert the electrical components of visible light waves waves to electrical charge with more fidelity than a pinned-diode in a CMOS sensor.
But I can think of several reasons the sensor assembly can produce aesthetically unique, desirable images.