Recently, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Rearden, LLC v. Walt Disney Pictures, No. 24-3970 (Sept. 11, 2025), affirming a district court order striking the plaintiff's jury demand on the issue of disgorgement of profits.
Rearden sued Disney for vicarious and contributory infringement of its copyrights in its MOVA VFX software—a facial motion capture system used to digitize actors' performances for CG character animation—in the making of the live-action Beauty and the Beast film. Rearden sought actual damages and disgorgement of profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Only Rearden's claim for vicarious copyright infringement proceeded to trial. At trial, the district court granted Disney's motion to strike Rearden's jury demand on the issue of disgorgement of profits finding that neither the Seventh Amendment nor the Copyright Act provide a right to a jury trial on the issue. Rearden appealed on multiple issues, including the striking of its jury demand on disgorgement.
On the issue of disgorgement, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Noting the issue was a matter of first impression and that it would be the first circuit court to consider the question, the Court held that Section 504(b) does not provide a statutory right to a jury trial on disgorgement of profits. Although not at issue on appeal, the Court noted that the profits remedy is equitable, and the Seventh Amendment thus does not guarantee a jury trial.
The Court found that nothing in the language of Section 504(b) or its legislative history demonstrated a congressional intent to provide a right to a jury trial on the profits remedy. Instead, the Court concluded the statute's silence on the issue is strong evidence that Congress did not intend to confer such rights. Further, the Court stated that Congress understood the profits remedy to be equitable and pointed to House Reports referencing the role of "the court" in making apportionment determinations under Section 504(b). The Court rejected Rearden's argument that the absence of references to "the court" in Section 504(b) itself, and the combination of a legal and equitable remedy in one subsection indicate congressional intent to confer a jury trial right. The Court further concluded that the fact that pattern jury instructions exist and that juries have decided the profits remedy in the past does not mean parties are entitled to a jury trial on the issue.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
