My above comment was simply to show that notification or not, makes no difference. Who cares what if some of the docs are sealed? We know E* told the court their new designs were in beta testing, they wanted the court to review them for preapproval so they could implement them if the court approved them for implementation. After all the new order said just that, get approval for implementation. Now the notification is given, the court has no time to review them. Why do you believe notification during the stay last time would have made any difference? The court would still have no time back then, the stay would lift, TiVo would bring E* to court. Maybe TiVo would not be able to argue hey they did not notify. But then would the damages be less because of that? Would TiVo have asked for $500M instead of $1B? Would the court have assessed $500M damages instead of $200M? None of the damages seemed to be related to anything but the infringement anyway, so what difference would the notification have made? Do you agree or not that at a minimum, if TiVo or the court wants to argue that notification would be a good idea back then, that they would at least have tried to show E* notification would actually be a better way to do things? So why after all the argument about notification, simply slam the door on it and say hey I have no time to deal with it after all?