POLAROID CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Fed. Cir. | 1986-01-07
No. Appeal No. 86-604
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
833 F.2d 930 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1986)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court denied Kodak's motions for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.


Facts & Procedural History

The district court granted Polaroid an injunction against Kodak and denied Kodak's motion for a stay. Kodak appealed and filed motions for a stay pend…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

On October 11, 1985, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Polaroid Corporation’s request for injunctive relief and denied Eastman Kodak Company’s (Kodak’s) motion for a stay pending appeal. 641 F.Supp. 828, 228 USPQ 305, 342-44 (D.Mass.1985). The injunction was to take effect on January 9, 1986.

On November 4, 1985, Kodak filed in this court a motion under Rule 8(a), Fed.R. App.P., seeking a stay of the injunction pending appeal. After both parties filed briefs, this court ordered, on December 2, 1985, that the motion be heard and decided by the merits panel.

On January 6,1986, Kodak filed an emergency motion in this court seeking a stay of the same injunction pending a decision on its November 4, 1985 motion.

Having fully considered all of the submissions and having carefully reviewed the well-considered reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum, 641 F.Supp. 828, 228 USPQ at 342-44, this court finds no adequate basis for reaching a conclusion different from that of the district court with respect to the requested stay of the injunction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for stay filed under Rule 8(a) is denied.

(2) The emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw