Legal Opinion
Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. v. Tennant Company
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided September 3, 2025No. 0:20-cv-00358Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-00358 (KMM/DJF) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Tennant Company, Defendant. Before the Court are two post-trial motions: Defendant Tennant Company’s (“Tennant”) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”) and for a New Trial (ECF 893), and Plaintiff Oxygenator Water Technologies’ (“OWT”) Motion for Attorney Fees Enhanced Damages, Interest, and Costs (ECF 902). For the reasons that follow, Tennant’s motion is DENIED, while OWT’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Background The Court…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- 02 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
- General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2016
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.