Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp.

Full title: REN JUDKINS, Plaintiff, v. HT WINDOW FASHIONS CORP., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 1, 2010

Civil Action No. 07-0251 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-0251.

April 1, 2010

ORDER

GARY LANCASTER, District Judge

AND NOW, this 1^st day of April, 2010, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's memorandum dated March 30, 2010, is amended as noted below. The amended text is indicated with bold text.

At page 43, bottom: "HT also contends that the Ford Patents should have been deemed prior art, and as such, would have rendered the `120 Patent obvious and the `634 Patent anticipated."

At page 45, top: "We know that the jury sided with Judkins on these issues because had it found the Ford Patents to be prior art, then it would necessarily have followed that the `634 Patent was invalid as anticipated because claim 10 of the Ford `550 Patent is identical to claim 10 of the `634 patent."

In all other respects, the court's memorandum shall remain unchanged.