FUJIFILM CORPORATION V. JACK C. BENUN AND JAZZ PRODUCTS LLC, POLYTECH ENTERPRISE LTD. (PE)
AND POLYTECH (SHENZHEN) CAMERA CO. (PC)
Facts:
This case is concerns single-use cameras, or Lens-Fitted Film Packages (LFFPs). Fuji owns U.S Patents relates to LFFP. Once the LFFP is used by a consumer and it is taken the processor and the processor opens the LFFP and processes the film. The film processor does not return empty LFFP (shell) to the consumer. The defendant Jazz used to keep LFFPs and refurbished the LFFP and sold it as new LFFP in the market. It was the 6th Appeal from the Courts decision findings that the first defendant and the other companies controlled by him is liable for infringement of the Fuji's LFFP. In 2005 Fuji sued Benun, Jazz and others for patent infringement. After Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey shut down Jazz, PE supplied Jazz with LFFPs that were refurbished by PE's Subsidiary company PC. PC involved in operating a factory in China where the LFFPs were refurbished. Later on Jazz purchased the Jazz Photo Corp's inventory about LFFPs made by PE and PC (collectively ploytech). The District Court made preliminary injunction against Jazz from selling in or to U.S. Later on Jazz again started re-importation of the LFFPs which was in question and the District Court found defendants liable for contempt of the preliminary injunction based on the clear and convincing evidence that the re-imported LFFPs were infringing as determined by the sampling process. In 2009 the defendants moved in limine to bar reference to prior litigations and administrative actions and to collaterally estop Fuji from Litigation.
Issues: Whether the Defendants are liable for patent infringement?
Judgment:
After finding from both party’s argument and evidence, at the close of Fuji’s case, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) on Fuji’s infringement claim based on defendants refurbishing Achiever-brand LFFPs. Defendants’ JMOL motion, which contained no other issues, was denied. The jury found willful infringement of Fuji’s patents by the defandants’ and awarded $16 million in favor of Fujifilm.
