After stating my view earlier which case law was controlling, now let me address that particular point above which is valid. The three-part test of the Fifth Circuit case law says: However for the order to be in effect, one of the prerequisites is that the order must be clear and concise, cannot be reasonably misunderstood by the respondent. To answer that, let me first quote Judge Folsom's own words: Here even the judge himself understood his injunction was to prohibit future infringement only. Therefore, when E* tried to interpret his injunction, it is reasonable for E* to interpret the disabling order to be limited to "Infringing Products", not "infringing and no-longer-infringing products". Because as the judge correctly stated, his injunction was to prohibit "future infringement", it is most certainly reasonable for E* to interpret the disabling order to prohibit the use of the DVR functions that continued to infringe in the future, not whether they infringed in the past. If they managed to modify the DVRs into non-infringing DVRs, therefore rendering the once infringing DVR functions in the past, into non-infringing DVR functions in the future, the disabling order would no longer apply. Now you do not have to agree with E*'s interpretation, that is not the point, the point is, was the judge's disabling order so clear as to the point that E* could not possibly have made the above interpretation? If the answer is a no, then his order was not clear enough. He should have said: "to disable the DVR fucntions (i.e. disable the storage and playback from the hard drive...) from the Infringing Products, whether those products still infringe or not." An order that is not absolutely clear and may in any way, shape and form lead to misinterpretation, is an order that is not effective. If it is not effective, the above three-part test has failed.