Fujifilm North America Corporation v. PLR IP Holdings
Fujifilm North America Corporation v. PLR IP Holdings, LLC and PLR Brand Services, LLC; PLR IP Holdings, LLC, PLR Brand Services, LLC, Polaroid Film B.V., and Polaroid America Corp. d/b/a Polaroid Originals v. Fujifilm North America Corporation and Fujifilm Corporation
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:17-cv-08796
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Fujifilm v. PLR, Judge Buchwald denied Fujifilm’s motion to reconsider an earlier partial summary-judgment ruling in the intellectual-property dispute.
Fujifilm North America Corporation and Fujifilm Corporation did not obtain reconsideration of the earlier partial summary-judgment decision. The ruling left Fujifilm’s earlier partial victory and the denial of summary judgment on Polaroid’s remaining counterclaims unchanged.
What happened
In Fujifilm North America Corporation v. PLR IP Holdings, LLC and PLR Brand Services, LLC, Fujifilm asked the court to reconsider an earlier decision on Polaroid’s counterclaims. That earlier decision granted Fujifilm summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
Fujifilm argued that the court had made clear errors concerning abandonment of Polaroid’s rights in the appearance of its instant film and the use of judicial estoppel against Fujifilm’s functionality defense. Fujifilm relied on arguments and materials it had previously presented.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied Fujifilm’s motion. She concluded that Fujifilm had not identified a controlling decision or information the court had overlooked, and that disagreement with the earlier analysis was not enough to justify reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Fujifilm North America Corporation v. PLR IP Holdings · No. 1:17-cv-08796
- Naomi Buchwald
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
The case is a longstanding intellectual-property dispute between Fujifilm and Polaroid. The opinion addresses only Fujifilm’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 25, 2025 decision on Fujifilm’s motion for summary judgment concerning six counterclaims asserted by Polaroid.
The earlier decision granted Fujifilm’s motion in part as to counterclaims directed at images of developed Instax Square film in Fujifilm’s promotional materials. It denied Fujifilm’s motion on Polaroid’s remaining counterclaims.
Fujifilm’s Arguments
Fujifilm argued that the court committed clear error in analyzing abandonment. It contended that the court improperly treated Polaroid’s trademark evidence as relevant to the alleged abandonment of Polaroid’s trade dress, which involved the three-dimensional configuration of Polaroid instant film. Fujifilm also argued that Polaroid’s cessation of film manufacturing was enough to establish abandonment.
The court rejected that argument because the parties had extensively briefed the distinction between Polaroid’s trademark and trade-dress rights. The earlier decision defined the claimed appearance, referred to as “CBL,” to include the three-dimensional configuration of Polaroid instant film, two-dimensional depictions of that film, and line drawings depicting it. The court had considered evidence of trademark use, including post-2011 licensing and enforcement activities, and found that the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact about abandonment.
Fujifilm also argued that goodwill could not preserve Polaroid’s rights without an intent to resume use. The court said that the earlier decision had already addressed this argument and found a genuine dispute concerning Polaroid’s ongoing goodwill and intent to resume use. The court treated Fujifilm’s claim that it had misapplied precedent as an assertion of disagreement, not as a basis for reconsideration.
Finally, Fujifilm argued that the court clearly erred in concluding that genuine factual disputes prevented Fujifilm from prevailing on a functionality defense because of judicial estoppel. Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that can prevent a party from taking a position inconsistent with one it previously presented and on which a court or agency relied. The earlier decision had found that Fujifilm’s effort to obtain a design patent represented that the border of its analog instant film was sufficiently ornamental rather than primarily functional, and that the Patent and Trademark Office relied on that representation in issuing the patent.
Legal Standard and Ruling
A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary request used sparingly. It generally requires the moving party to identify a controlling decision or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the result. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald held that Fujifilm had not identified any controlling decision or information that the court overlooked. Instead, Fujifilm relied on materials already submitted and argued that the court had misapplied the law. The court therefore denied Fujifilm’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 264.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.