M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc.
| M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. |
| Dynamic Air Inc. |
| 0:2014cv04857 |
| November 25, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| XX Outside US |
| Hildy Bowbeer |
| Ann D. Montgomery |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
382
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Defendant's Objections 375 are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART; Plaintiffs' Objections 376 are OVERRULED; The Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation 367 and 378 is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART; Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 285 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. and M-I LLC shall pay Defendant Dynamic Air Inc. $1,372,064.37; Prejudgment interest is NOT AWARDED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 3/20/2018. (JMK)
|
|
Filing
281
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 228 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopt Report and Recommendation 270 Report and Recommendation.(Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on March 30, 2017. (DML)
|
|
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 04/10/2015. (TLU)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
