## Facts

- Polaroid owned patents covering instant cameras and instant-camera film.
- Kodak entered the instant-photography market and sold instant cameras and film that Polaroid claimed practiced Polaroid’s patented technology.
- In the underlying patent litigation, the district court found Kodak infringed Polaroid’s patents on multiple counts (17 counts).
- The case then moved into a damages phase, where the parties agreed Polaroid was entitled to injunctive relief and largely agreed on the injunction’s wording.
- Kodak asked the court to stay (pause) the injunction while Kodak pursued an appeal.
- To support a stay, Kodak offered evidence about the costs of ending the infringement and the harm to Kodak’s goodwill with millions of customers who had purchased Kodak’s instant-photography products.
- Polaroid opposed a stay, arguing that continued sales would extend the period of infringement and further harm Polaroid’s patent rights and competitive position.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should stay the injunction pending appeal after Kodak was found to have infringed Polaroid’s instant-photography patents.

## Decision

- The court entered injunctive relief against Kodak as agreed in substance by the parties.
- The court denied Kodak’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A stay of an injunction pending appeal is an equitable remedy; the party seeking a stay bears the burden to justify it.
- In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts weigh the standard equitable considerations, including: the movant’s likelihood of success on appeal, the risk of irreparable harm to the movant without a stay, the risk of harm to the non-movant if a stay is granted, and the public interest.
- Costs and business disruption from stopping adjudicated infringement, including claimed harm to customer relations, do not by themselves require a stay, particularly where continued activity would prolong infringement.
- The public interest generally favors enforcing patent rights after a judgment of infringement, absent a strong showing that delaying enforcement is warranted under the stay factors.

## Conclusion

Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. addresses post-liability relief after Kodak was found to have infringed Polaroid’s instant-photography patents: although the parties agreed that an injunction should issue, Kodak sought to suspend that injunction during appeal based on compliance costs and asserted harm to customer goodwill; applying equitable stay standards, the court declined to pause enforcement and denied Kodak’s motion for a stay pending appeal.


Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 641 F. Supp. 828 (1986)