MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendant Woodway USA, Inc. (“Woodway” or “defendant”) moves to strike the jury demand of plaintiffs Speedfit LLC (“Speedfit”) and Aurel A. Astilean (“Astilean”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs commenced this litigation against defendant in 2013. After seven years, four pleading amendments, extensive discovery, intensive motion practice, and the dismissal of all but one of plaintiffs’ claims at summary judgment, this case is finally ready for trial. For the reasons discussed below, however, that trial will not be held before a jury, but will be conducted by the court. Plaintiffs’ sole remaining cause of action is for unjust enrichment, a claim which is traditionally considered to be equitable and, here, seeks an equitable remedy. For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand is granted. BACKGROUND Familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this matter is assumed, as set forth comprehensively in this court’s prior orders concerning this litigation. See Speedfit LLC, et al. v. Woodway USA, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying Woodway’s motion to dismiss and motion to transfer); Speedfit LLC, et al. v. Woodway USA, Inc., No. 13-CV- 1276, 2015 WL 6143697 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2015) (granting leave to file a Third Amended Complaint); Speedfit LLC, et al. v. Woodway USA, Inc., 226 F. Supp. 3d 149 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (granting in part and denying in part Woodway’s motion to dismiss Third Amended Complaint); Speedfit LLC, et al. v. Woodway USA, Inc., No. 13CV1276KAMAKT, 2020 WL 108646 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020) (“Summary Judgment Order”) (granting in part and denying in part Woodway’s motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment). The court recounts only those facts pertinent to the disposition of the instant motion. Speedfit, co-founded by plaintiff Aurel Astilean, is a New York-based company that develops fitness programs and equipment. (ECF No. 150, Supplemental Complaint (“Supp. Compl.”)
8-9.) Defendant Woodway is a Wisconsin-based corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells fitness and exercise products, including non-motorized treadmills with a curved running surface. (Id. 10.) Plaintiffs filed the operative Supplemental Complaint on February 10, 2017, alleging claims of patent infringement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust. (See generally Supp. Compl.) Plaintiffs designated “Jury Trial Demanded” on the cover page of their pleading. (Id.) The Supplemental Complaint alleges that Astilean disclosed the prototype of a curved, non-motorized treadmill (“Wooden Prototype”) to Woodway in December 2008, one month after Astilean filed a provisional patent application to protect his treadmill invention. (Id.
