Thank you for posting the rules, the mistake you made is you read the rule literally. If you noticed in every injunction, the order must specifically reference what kind of patent claims are at issue, i.e. referencing those documents, and maybe many other documented items, such as how to define a product, even often actually use the actual documents for reference if necessary. So your literal interpretation is not on point, what is on point is Rule 65(d) requires that the issues referenced in an injunction must ONLY refer to those already adjudicated/documented in the trial, not any other things not yet have arisen or adjudicated/documented. Therefore if later TiVo tried to use this injunction to impost limitations based on documents that by rule 65(d) could not be referenced, TiVo had gone beyond the scope of the order. As far as if TiVo can or cannot admit the injunction was unclear, of course they cannot, that was never the point. The point is, in answering that question, TiVo was forced to accept at least the assumption that the injunction was unclear, and subsequently gave a wrong answer to it. It is those answers given by the parties, not their own positions as far as whether the order is clear or whatever, will likely make the difference.