Judge Folsom said that money damages aren't an adequate remedy: "Plaintiff has demonstrated both that it continues to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and that there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendants compete directly with Plaintiff – Defendants market their infringing products to potential DVR customers as an alternative to purchasing Plaintiff’s DVRs. The availability of the infringing products leads to loss of market share for Plaintiff’s products. Loss of market share in this nascent market is a key consideration in finding that Plaintiff suffers irreparable harm – Plaintiff is losing market share at a critical time in the market’s development, market share that it will not have the same opportunity to capture once the market matures. One thing the parties agree on is that DVR customers are “sticky customers,” that is they tend to remain customers of the company from which they obtain their first DVR. Thus, the impact of Defendants’ continued infringement is shaping the market to Plaintiff’s disadvantage and results in long-term customer loss. This is particularly key where, as is the case here, Plaintiff’s primary focus is on growing a customer base specifically around the product with which Defendants’ infringing product competes. And, as Plaintiff is a relatively new company with only one primary product, loss of market share and of customer base as a result of infringement cause severe injury. Thus, the Court concludes that the full impact of Defendants’ infringement cannot be remedied by monetary damages. "