Since when can an adjudicated product be a modified product? I only see one person playing a word game. Everyone has pretty much agreed a product enjoined and restrained from sales and manufacture can be modified and sold. If the patentee feels that the UNADJUDICATED product being sold is simply a merely colorably different construction of the adjudicated products, the patentee will file a motion for contempt. The entire problem with your line of thinking: That is a prima facie violation. There is an admission that Safety 1st sold the same infringing product that was enjoined. So let's translate these sentences into the TiVo case, as the most likely outcome from Judge Folsom's ruling: With respect to disabling "Infringing Products", Echostar has admitted that no units of the "Infringing Products" have been disabled. Echostar attempts to minimize its contemptuous conduct by playing word games with the Injunction. The fact remains, however, that Echostar violated a valid court order. Thus, the court finds that Echostar is in contempt of the Injunction with respect to complying with the disable order. Or, I could simply use the recall order from the Fisher-Price case: Translation to the most likely outcome of the TiVo case: TiVo argues that Echostar violated the Injunction by making no attempt to comply with the disable order regarding products found to infringe before this court. The court agrees. Considering the inconsistent attempts arguing against the plain language of the injunction, Echostar has admitted during depositions and at trial that no product found to infringe has been disabled. Therefore, the court finds that Echostar is in contempt of the Injunction with respect to its efforts to disable products found to infringe. The problem is that the product ordered disabled has been adjudicated. There is no need for any other finding in order to rule contempt. And most certainly, colorable difference does not apply.