`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Subject:
`
`ecf-notice@mnd.uscourts.gov
`Friday, August 27, 2021 12:28 PM
`mndecfnotifications@mnd.uscourts.gov
`Activity in Case 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. v. Tennant Company
`Order in Response to Letter/Request/E-mail
`
`This is an automatic e‐mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e‐mail
`because the mail box is unattended.
`***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and
`parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if
`receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges,
`download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the
`free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
`
`U.S. District Court
`
`U.S. District of Minnesota
`
`Notice of Electronic Filing
`
`The following transaction was entered on 8/27/2021 at 12:28 PM CDT and filed on 8/27/2021
`Case Name:
`Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. v. Tennant Company
`Case Number:
`0:20‐cv‐00358‐ECT‐HB
`
`Filer:
`Document Number: 250(No document attached)
`
`Docket Text:
`(Text-Only) ORDER in Response to [247] Letter to District Judge. Plaintiff Oxygenator Water
`Technologies, Inc. has filed a letter [247] seeking permission to file a motion to reconsider the
`construction of the term "tubular housing." Oxygenator's request is DENIED. Oxygenator's
`request is grounded on an interpretation of the opinion and order on claim construction [162]
`that is not correct. As Oxygenator describes it, the opinion and order reflects the Court's
`understanding that only circles have radii." Letter at 1. The opinion and order does not
`conclude that a "radius" may only exist in a circle, as opposed to other geometric shapes.
`Rather, "radius" is one word among other "words that are associated with circles." Op. and
`Order at 36. Further, several considerations beyond the word "radius" supported the
`construction of "tubular housing." It also merits observing that accepting the submission of
`additional evidence and argument that could have been presented earlier risks inviting the re-
`litigation of claim-construction issues in a way that would undermine the judicial process. For
`all these reasons, compelling circumstances do not support Oxygenator's request. Ordered by
`Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 8/27/2021.(RMM)
`
`
`0:20‐cv‐00358‐ECT‐HB Notice has been electronically mailed to:
`
`Aaron W. Pederson apederson@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Adam R Steinert asteinert@fredlaw.com, autodockets@fredlaw.com, kmhanson@fredlaw.com,
`vhandler@fredlaw.com
`
`Austen P Zuege azuege@wck.com, wwhite@wck.com
`
`Cara S Donels cdonels@fredlaw.com
`
`Hannah Mosby O'Brien hobrien@carlsoncaspers.com, areid@carlsoncaspers.com
`
` J
`
` Derek Vandenburgh dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com, kjohnston@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`Lora Mitchell Friedemann lfriedemann@fredlaw.com, autodockets@fredlaw.com, kmhanson@fredlaw.com,
`VHandler@fredlaw.com
`
`Nathan Louwagie nlouwagie@carlsoncaspers.com, lkyles@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Philip P Caspers pcaspers@carlsoncaspers.com, cmunasinghe@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Robert Scott Johnson rsjohnson@fredlaw.com, autodockets@fredlaw.com, smccray@fredlaw.com
`
`Thomas M. Patton tpatton@fredlaw.com
`
`Timothy M O'Shea toshea@fredlaw.com, autodockets@fredlaw.com, dcmarshall@fredlaw.com, IPLit@fredlaw.com
`
`Todd S Werner twerner@carlsoncaspers.com, rfirner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`0:20‐cv‐00358‐ECT‐HB Notice has been delivered by other means to:
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
