AM International, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Plaintiff, AM International, Inc., (“AMI”) moves for an untimely jury demand under Rule 39(b). Defendant, Eastman Kodak Company, (“Kodak”) opposes the motion arguing the demand has come far too late in the proceedings and that it would be severely prejudiced if the jury demand is now granted. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
AMI filed this action in July, 1980 alleging that Kodak had infringed on four of its patents. In September, 1980, Kodak filed an answer and counterclaim alleging, inter alia, unfair competition in the filing of law suits…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Billy Merritt v. Gordon H. FaulknerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Louise Parrott, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Parrott, Deceased v. Max v. Wilson, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- United States v. Unum, Inc. And Lance W. DreyerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Early v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- Karol v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1989
- Noddings Investment Group, Inc. v. KelleyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1995
- GCS Credit Union v. American United Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2023