Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Juji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp.

Date: 12-05-2002

Case Number: 99-CV-2937

Judge: Faith S. Hochberg

Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert J. Rohrberger of Fox & Fox, Livingston, New Jersey

Defendant's Attorney: Jeffery I. Kaplan of Kaplan & Gilman, Woodbridge, New Jersey

Description:
Patent infringement claim by Fuji Photo Film Corporation against Jazz Photo Corporation relating to the recycling single use cameras manufactured and sold by Fuji and Kodak. The disposable cameras were sent to China by Jazz where they were reloaded with film, glued back togther and sold to the public at a price below Fuji. Plaintiff's goal is to force defendant out of the business of recycling disposable cameras.


Fuji and the Eastman Kodak Film Co., which licenses the single-use technology from Fuji, both recycle the cameras by melting down and remolding the plastic cases. The cases are collected from film labs by middlemen, who sell them to Fuji, Kodak or Jazz, which does not melt them, but merely reloads and relabels them, and sells them for less than the two big film companies.

Outcome:
Plaintiff's verdict for $25 million.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unavailable
Defendant's Experts:
Unavailable
Comments:
None

About This Case

What was the outcome of Juji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp.?

The outcome was: Plaintiff's verdict for $25 million.

Which court heard Juji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, NJ. The presiding judge was Faith S. Hochberg.

Who were the attorneys in Juji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Robert J. Rohrberger of Fox & Fox, Livingston, New Jersey. Defendant's attorney: Jeffery I. Kaplan of Kaplan & Gilman, Woodbridge, New Jersey.

When was Juji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp. decided?

This case was decided on December 5, 2002.