1ATTC also makes references to its own summary judgment

motion that it anticipated filing on its defenses. For purposes

of deciding Hypertherm’s motion, however, the court considers

only matters properly presented in support of and in opposition

to that motion. See LR 7.2(b).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD

Opinion No. 2008 DNH 216

American Torch Tip Company

O R D E R

Hypertherm, Inc. moves for summary judgment on American

Torch Tip Company’s (“ATTC”) invalidity defenses, which challenge

United States Patents Nos. 5,310,988 (“‘988 patent”), 6,946,617

(“‘671 patent”), and 7,019,255 (“‘255 patent”). ATTC contends

that material factual disputes preclude summary judgment.1 The

court previously excluded evidence offered by ATTC in support of

its opposition to summary judgment, and Hypertherm also

challenges the qualifications of ATTC’s expert witness. 

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the

discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 20
2

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment must

first demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact

in the record. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary

judgment must present competent evidence of record that shows a

genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). All reasonable inferences and all

credibility issues are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. 

See id. at 255. 

Proof of the affirmative defense of anticipation presents a

question of fact, while “obviousness is a question of law based

on underlying facts.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnositics Corp.

v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because

patents are presumed to be valid, “‘[t]he burden of establishing

invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the

party asserting such invalidity.’” Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,

544 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 282). 

A party challenging the validity of a patent, therefore, “has the

burden of persuasion to show by clear and convincing evidence

that the contrary is true.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,

Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “When the examiner

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 2 of 20
3

considered the asserted prior art and basis for the validity

challenge during patent prosecution, that burden becomes

particularly heavy.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms., 545

F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The burden of proving invalidity “exists at every stage of

the litigation.” Abbott Labs., 544 F.3d at 1346. When

considering a motion for summary judgment on the issue of

invalidity, “the court views the record evidence through the

prism of the evidentiary standard of proof that would pertain at

a trial on the merits.” SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng’g, Inc., 465

F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, “a moving party

seeking to have a patent held not invalid at summary judgment

must show that the nonmoving party, who bears the burden of proof

at trial, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence on an

essential element of a defense upon which a reasonable jury could

invalidate the patent.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Lab. Inc., 251

F.3d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Discussion

ATTC contends that the asserted claims of the ‘988 patent,

claims 1, 11, and 12, are invalid because of anticipation and

obviousness. ATTC also contends that the asserted claims of the

‘617 and ‘255 patents were anticipated by the ‘988 patent and

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 3 of 20
2The “Whitney electrode” is a reference to an ATTC drawing

of an electrode, and ATTC argued that electrodes were produced

from the drawing and sold. 

3ATTC concedes that the Whitney electrode drawing, by

itself, does not constitute prior art and does not rely on the

drawing for its invalidity defenses.

4

United States Patent No. 6,066,827 (“‘827 patent”) and were also

anticipated by a combination of the ‘827 patent and the “Thermal

Dynamics PCH/-200 Torch” (“M-200 Torch”). Hypertherm asserts

that ATTC cannot provide clear and convincing evidence that the

‘988, ‘617, or ‘255 patents were anticipated by prior art or were

obvious. 

I. The ‘988 Patent and “Whitney Electrode”

 ATTC argues that the ‘988 patent is invalid because it was

anticipated by the “Whitney electrode.”2 Specifically, ATTC

contends that the Whitney electrode was “in public use or on sale

in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the

application for [the ‘988 patent].” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In

support of its defense, ATTC relies on invoices purporting to

show sales of Whitney electrodes before the cutoff date for the

‘988 patent application and on the declarations of Jeffrey

Walters, ATTC’s vice president, and Daniel Walters, an ATTC

employee, about sales of a Whitney electrode.3

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 4 of 20
5

Hypertherm moved to exclude the invoices and the Walters’

declarations on the ground that ATTC failed to disclose them in

response to Hypertherm’s interrogatories. The court granted the

motion on August 6, 2008. ATTC offers no other evidence to

support its anticipation defense for the ‘988 patent. In the

absence of the proffered evidence of anticipation of the ‘988

patent by the Whitney electrode, ATTC cannot sustain its burden

to show invalidity on that basis. Therefore, Hypertherm is

entitled to summary judgment on that defense.

II. The ‘988 Patent and Its Background

Hypertherm moves for summary judgment on ATTC’s defense that

the ‘988 patent was obvious based on the combination of the

Whitney electrode and the background section of the ‘988 patent

itself. Hypertherm argues that because the Whitney electrode is

not prior art for purposes of the obviousness defense, ATTC is

left with only one prior art reference, the ‘988 patent

background. Without citation to authority, Hypertherm asserts

that obviousness requires combining elements or limitations of

more than one prior art reference. 

In response, ATTC contends that the background section,

alone, is prior art and sufficient to render claims 11 and 12 of

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 5 of 20
4ATTC also asserted that the Whitney electrode constitutes

prior art. The evidence of the electrode as prior art, other

than the drawing, has been excluded.

5Hypertherm’s one-sentence reply, which appears to address

the merits of the obviousness defense, is insufficient to support

its motion on that issue. See United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d

69, 90 n.21 (1st Cir. 2008) (arguments raised for the first time

in a reply are deemed waived); Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience

N.V., 514 F.3d 1229, 1240 n.16 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (same); see also

Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

(arguments that are insufficiently developed are deemed waived).

6

the ‘988 patent obvious and invalid.4 Hypertherm replies,

stating only that the background section of the ‘988 patent does

not “teach the step of selecting a hafnium diameter in

coordination with the operating current.” 

ATTC is correct that in appropriate circumstances a single

prior art reference can suffice to show obviousness. See, e.g.,

McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir.

2001) (citing cases). Hypertherm’s motion for summary judgment

on this issue was based on the theory that a single prior art

reference was insufficient to show obviousness as a matter of

law. Because that assertion is wrong, summary judgment is

inappropriate.5

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 6 of 20
6Although Hypertherm also seeks summary judgment on a

defense of anticipation, ATTC does not mention that basis for its

invalidity defense in response to the motion, and therefore, that

defense is deemed to be abandoned. See Diversey Lever, Inc. v.

Ecolab, Inc., 191 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999); cf. Pandrol

USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1364-65 (Fed.

Cir. 2003).

7

III. Invalidity of the ‘617 and ‘255 Patents

ATTC contends that the ‘617 and ‘255 patents were

anticipated by the ‘988 patent and the ‘827 patent. ATTC also

contends that the inventions of the ‘617 patent and the ‘255

patent were obvious in light of the M-200 Torch.6 Hypertherm

seeks summary judgment on both defenses.

A. Anticipation by the ‘988 and ‘827 patents.

Anticipation, under § 102(a), is a defense that the claimed

invention is not new but instead was previously known. Hakim v.

Cannon Avent Group, PLC, 479 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

“Anticipation is established by documentary evidence, and

requires that every claim element and limitation is set forth in

a single prior art reference, in the same form and order as in

the claim.” Abbott Labs., 544 F.3d at 1345. The requirement

that the elements and limitations be set forth in the same order

as in the claim means that the anticipatory reference shows “all

of the limitations of the claims arranged or combined in the same

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 7 of 20
8

way as recited in the claims, not merely in a particular order.” 

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed.

Cir. 2008).

Anticipation may be explicit or inherent. Abbott Labs., 544

F.3d at 1345. Any limitation of the claimed invention that is

not explicit in the prior art reference “must be inherently

taught and would be so understood by a person experienced in the

field.” In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1377-78

(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum,

192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Inherent anticipation

requires that any element which is not expressly stated in the

prior art reference “would nonetheless be known to be present in

the subject matter of the reference, when viewed by persons

experienced in the field of the invention.” Id. at 1378. 

“[I]nherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference

discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated

limitation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The ‘255 and ‘617 patents are related; the ‘255 patent

issued from a continuation of the application that became the

‘617 patent. They share the same specification and drawings. 

The ‘827 patent is listed as a prior art reference for both the

‘255 and ‘617 patents. Both patents “are directed to a method

and apparatus for alignment of components of a plasma arc torch.” 

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 8 of 20
9

Pl. Mem. ¶ 16. All three of the asserted claims are directed to

an electrode with “a hollow elongated body having an open end and

a closed end.” In addition, they share the element of “a surface

located on an interior portion of the elongated body [that is]

adapted to mate and align with a coolant tube along a direction

of a longitudinal axis of the coolant tube, wherein the coolant

tube is not rigidly attachable to a torch body.” Claim 12, ‘617

patent; see also Claims 7 & 25, ‘255 patent. 

ATTC asserts that because the court construed the asserted

claims not to claim electrodes in combination with coolant tubes,

the element pertaining to the coolant tube is not part of the

asserted claims. ATTC is mistaken. In the order on claim

construction, the court explained that “the phrase describing the

coolant tube is necessary to provide a context for that part of

the invention directed to the electrode’s surface which is

‘adapted to mate and align with a coolant tube.’” Order, Jan.

29, 2008, dkt. 152, at 10. As such, the “phrase does not claim

the coolant tube in combination with the electrode but limits the

claimed electrode to one that is adapted to align and mate with

the described coolant tube.” Id. The coolant tube is described

in the asserted claims as “not rigidly attachable to a torch

body.”

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 9 of 20
10

Relying on its interpretation of claim construction, which

excludes the context of the coolant tube, ATTC does not address

that limitation for purposes of showing anticipation. Because

anticipation requires proof that the prior art anticipated every

limitation of the asserted claim and ATTC failed to show any

evidence of the coolant tube context limitation, ATTC has not

sufficiently sustained its burden of proof to avoid summary

judgment. Even if ATTC were correct that the coolant tube

context limitation was excluded from the claims through claim

construction, it has not shown anticipation as to the remaining

claim elements.

1. Explicit Anticipation

 ATTC contends that the ‘988 patent and the ‘827 patent

anticipate claim 12 of the ‘617 patent and claims 7 and 25 of the

‘255 patent. ATTC concedes, however, that the specifications of

the ‘988 and ‘827 patents “do not teach an electrode that mates

and aligns with a coolant tube.” Instead, ATTC asserts that

drawings, specifically Figure 1 of the ‘827 patent and Figure 2

of the ‘988 patent, disclose that missing element.

 ATTC relies on a rule, provided in old cases, that an

invention for purposes of anticipation can be shown by patent

drawings alone, in appropriate circumstances. See In re Mraz,

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 10 of 20
11

455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (C.C.P.A. 1972); In re Watts, 58 F.2d 841,

841 (C.C.P.A. 1932). When drawings do not show that a particular

configuration had the same purpose as in the challenged patent,

however, drawings are not anticipatory. Id. The Federal Circuit

has not addressed, recently, reliance on a drawing alone to show

anticipation. In addition, reliance on a drawing would appear to

be more difficult in light of the requirement that to be

anticipatory, the prior art reference must disclose all elements

of the claim “arranged as in the claim,” meaning “the limitations

of the claims [must be] arranged or combined in the same way as

recited in the claims . . . .” Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at

1370.

Assuming that explicit anticipation could be demonstrated

from a drawing, ATTC has not shown that the cited drawings,

Figure 2 of the ‘988 patent and Figure 1 of the ‘827 patent, show

a surface that is adapted to mate and align with a coolant tube. 

Although ATTC states that Figure 10 of the ‘617 patent and Figure

2 of the ‘988 patent show “identical” surfaces, the highlighted

surfaces are not identical. Nothing in the ‘988 drawing

indicates that the purpose of the highlighted surface is to mate

and align with a coolant tube, the element claimed in the ‘617

patent.

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 11 of 20
7Because the ‘827 patent was cited in the ‘255 and ‘617

patents as prior art, ATTC bears a particularly heavy burden to

show anticipation. Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms., Inc.,

545 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

12

ATTC contends that Figure 1 of the ‘827 patent “discloses a

surface that may is [sic] ‘adapted to mate and align with a

coolant tube’ and therefore the ‘827 patent is anticipatory prior

art.”7 ATTC Mem. ¶ 22. ATTC relies on the opinion of its

expert, Dr. Sprague, to show anticipation by Figure 1. Although

Dr. Sprague explains that the drawing shows a surface in a

particular shape that could mate and align with a coolant tube,

he does not suggest that the surface shown in the drawing had the

same purpose as the ‘617 and ‘255 patent claims. In addition,

with respect to the element that the electrode had a hollow

elongated body with an open end and a closed end, Dr. Sprague

stated that “it is inherent that the rear (upper) end of the

electrode must be open.” Sprague Rep. App. H at 24. Therefore,

even based on Dr. Sprague’s opinion, the ‘827 patent drawing does

not disclose explicitly each element of the asserted claims. 

2. Inherent Anticipation

Alternatively, ATTC argues that the asserted claims of the

‘255 and ‘617 patents are inherently anticipated by the ‘988 and

‘827 patents. Hypertherm challenges ATTC’s evidence, and in

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 12 of 20
13

particular, argues that ATTC’s expert, Dr. Sprague, is not “one

skilled in the art,” making his opinions on anticipation

unpersuasive. Although ATTC asserts that it can oppose summary

judgment on inherent anticipation without evidence from “one

skilled in the art,” ATTC primarily relies on and supports Dr.

Sprague’s opinions.

As a preliminary matter, to be clear and convincing,

“testimony concerning anticipation must be testimony from one

skilled in the art and must identify each claim element, state

the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain

in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art.” 

Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed.

Cir. 2002). In addition, conclusory statements and mere denials

are insufficient to meet the standard. Id. Expert testimony is

unnecessary on issues of patent validity, for purposes of summary

judgment, only in rare cases where “the design of the patent is

not particularly sophisticated, nor is it markedly different from

the prior art.” Harvestall Indus., Inc. v. Hochstetler, 656 F.2d

1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1981).

This is not a rare case where the subject matter of the

patents is sufficiently simple to allow the court to compare

elements of the claims without expert opinion. Dr. Sprague’s

opinions on anticipation of the ‘255 and ‘617 patents by the ‘988

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 13 of 20
14

and ‘827 patents are presented in charts, comparing the elements

of the asserted patents with parts of drawings of the prior art. 

Even if he were determined to be one skilled in the art and if

his opinions were credited as sufficiently developed to avoid the

bar of conclusory statements and denials, he failed to address

several limitations in the asserted patents, citing claim

construction. As is discussed above, claim construction did not

eliminate any of the claim limitations stated in the asserted

claims. Therefore, ATTC has not shown that a material factual

dispute exists as to inherent anticipation.

3. Meaning of “Adapted To”

The asserted patent claims, as recited above, include a

limitation of “a surface . . . adapted to mate and align with a

coolant tube . . . .” Although ATTC did not raise the issue for

purposes of claim construction, it now argues that the proper

meaning of the term “adapted to,” as used in the asserted patent

claims, is “capable of.” In reliance on that interpretation,

ATTC argues that the ‘988 and ‘827 patents anticipated the ‘255

and ‘617 patents because their designs included a surface that

was capable of mating and aligning with the coolant tube. Even

if ATTC’s new construction were persuasive, as is discussed

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 14 of 20
15

above, ATTC lacks evidence to show anticipation of every element

of the asserted claims.

4. Conclusion

Given the gaps in the evidence to support ATTC’s

anticipation defenses, ATTC cannot show that every element of the

asserted claims was anticipated by the ‘988 or the ‘827 patents. 

See Abbott Labs., 544 F.3d at 1345. Therefore, Hypertherm is

entitled to summary judgment on ATTC’s anticipation defenses to

the validity of the ‘255 and ‘617 patents.

B. Obviousness Based on the M-200 Torch and the ‘827 Patent 

A patent is invalid if its subject matter would have been

obvious at the time of the invention to one having ordinary skill

in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at

1371. A determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion based

on underlying factual findings: “1) the scope and content of the

prior art, 2) the level of ordinary skill in the art, 3) the

differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and

4) evidence of secondary factors, also known as objective indicia

of non-obviousness.” Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd.,

533 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An obviousness analysis

cannot be based on hindsight but instead must focus on the broad

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 15 of 20
16

scope of teachings, suggestions, or motivations, which may be

found in written references or in “the knowledge and creativity

of skilled artisans,” that existed before the time of the

invention. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520

F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (applying the changes in the

obviousness analysis from KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550

U.S. 398 (2007)).

ATTC relies on Dr. Sprague’s opinions to show that the

combination of the ‘827 patent and the M-200 Torch rendered the

asserted claims of the ‘255 and ‘617 patents obvious. Dr.

Sprague’s opinions are expressed in the form of a comparison

chart, filed as Appendix K to his rebuttal expert report. Dr.

Sprague contends that the ‘827 patent provides the elements of an

electrode for a plasma arc torch, a hollow elongated body with an

open end and a closed end, and a surface “adapted to mate and

align with a coolant tube.” He states that the M-200 Torch and

its coolant tube were on sale prior to April 11, 2002, and that

the coolant tube was not “rigidly attachable to a torch body.” 

Dr. Sprague concludes that the coolant tube used in the M-200

Torch “would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art

to use the non-rigidly attachable coolant tube in order to

provide easy to remove, for repair or replacement, components in

the plasma arc torch.” Rebuttal Rep. App. K.

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 16 of 20
17

Hypertherm contends that expert witness evidence is required

to show obviousness. It further contends that Dr. Sprague lacks

an ordinary level of skill in the field of plasma arc torches

because he admittedly has no experience in the design or

manufacture of torches outside of the current litigation. For

that reason, Hyperterm asserts that Dr. Sprague’s opinions are

not evidence of obviousness, leaving ATTC without evidence to

support its defense. ATTC defends Dr. Sprague and argues that

his “well reasoned opinion” adequately supports the defense of

obviousness.

At the heart of the dispute is the parties’ disagreement

about the relevant art. Hypertherm contends that the relevant

art for purposes of the patents at issue in this case is plasma

arc torches. Dr. Smith Reed, Hypertherm’s expert witness,

states:

A person of ordinary skill in the art of plasma arc

torches and related technology, including plasma torch

consumable components, would in my opinion, be a person

with direct and substantially responsible experience

with plasma arc cutting technology or plasma arc

cutting torches and related equipment, along with an

educational background to enable an understanding of

the basic sciences involved, including the basic

physics, chemistry and physical dynamics involved.

Hypertherm Mem. (dkt. 176), Ex. 12, ¶ 3. ATTC and Dr. Sprague,

however, argue that the relevant field of art is more general,

comprising “mechanisms and mechanical design and additionally, in

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 17 of 20
18

the instance of the ‘988 patent, basic electrical theory.” 

Sprague Supp. Rep. at 3. Based on that view, Dr. Sprague

provides two different definitions of one skilled in the art:

(1) “an individual with at least a bachelor of science in

engineering or technology degree and a minimum of two [] years of

relevant experience or equivalent in mechanical design,” or,

alternatively, (2) “an individual with at least seven [] years

experience in designing or manufacturing components for plasma

arc torches.” Id.

ATTC does not explain what Dr. Sprague means by “relevant

experience or equivalent in mechanical design.” If that phrase

refers to experience in the field of plasma arc torches, then the

parties’ definitions would have substantial similarities, which

would appear to preclude Dr. Sprague as one skilled in the art. 

If that phrase means only experience in any mechanical design,

they do not agree, and Dr. Sprague’s qualifications could

suffice. As presented, a material factual dispute exists about

the necessary level of ordinary skill in the art, which is the

required factual predicate to determine obviousness that

Hypertherm challenged in its motion. Therefore, the issue cannot

be resolved for summary judgment based on the present record.

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 18 of 20
19

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment on invalidity defenses (document no. 175) is

granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted

in the plaintiff’s favor (1) on the defendant’s affirmative

defense that the ‘988 patent was anticipated by sales of the

Whitney electrode and (2) on the defendant’s affirmative defense

that the ‘255 and ‘617 patents were anticipated by the ‘988 and

‘827 patents. The motion is otherwise denied. 

Although Hypertherm requested a hearing on the motion, it

failed to state reasons why oral argument would assist the court

in deciding the motion. LR 7.1(d). Therefore, the request is

denied. 

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 29, 2008

cc: Jill C. Anderson, Esquire

Jacob K. Baron, Esquire

Steven M. Bauer, Esquire

Lucas M. Blower, Esquire

Colin G. Cabral, Esquire

Seth M. Cannon, Esquire

Joseph A. Capraro, Jr., Esquire

Christopher J. Carney, Esquire

Jeffery M. Cross, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 19 of 20
20

Joseph T. Dattilo, Esquire

Ami D. Gandhi, Esquire

Maia H. Harris, Esquire

Marc H. Kallish, Esquire

Rhett R. Krulla, Esquire

Jonathan A. Lax, Esquire

Richard C. Nelson, Esquire

W. Scott O'Connell, Esquire

Jeremy P. Oczek, Esquire

Richard D. Rochford, Jr., Esquire

David W. Ruoff, Esquire

John T. Shapiro, Esquire

John M. Skeriotis, Esquire

Benjamin M. Stern, Esquire

Wayne Tang, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 396 Filed 12/29/08 Page 20 of 20