Navarro v. Procter & Gamble Company
District Court, S.D. Ohio
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ANNETTE NAVARRO, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:17-cv-406 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Jury Demand and Bifurcate Trial (Mot. to Strike, Doc. 248). In that motion (the “Motion”), Defendants P&G and Walmart (“Defendants”) argue that Plaintiffs (“Navarro”) are not entitled to a jury on the question of recovering the infringer’s profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). The basic argument is that (1)…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Mertens v. Hewitt AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Lorillard v. PonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Curtis v. LoetherSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Tull v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.