UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc.

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

American Torch Tip Company

O R D E R

American Torch Tip Company (“ATTC”) moves for

reconsideration of part of the court’s claim construction order,

contending that the court made factual and legal errors. The

challenged claims are parts of U.S. Patent No. 7,019,255 (“the

‘255 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,946,617 (“the ‘617 patent”), and

U.S. Patent No. 5,977,510 (“the ‘510 patent”). Hypertherm, Inc.

objects to the motion.

In the claim construction order, the court construed a

disputed phrase used in claim 12 in the ‘671 patent and claims 7

and 25 in the ‘255 patent, “wherein the coolant tube is not

rigidly attachable to a torch body,” based on the patent

specifications. The court concluded that the phrase did not

claim the coolant tube in combination with the electrode. In

addition, the court noted that the doctrine of claim

differentiation, which ATTC mistakenly had asserted did not apply

when construing separate independent claims, also supported the

stated claim construction.

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 162 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 3
2

ATTC argues in support of reconsideration that the court

misapplied the doctrine of claim differentiation. The court is

not persuaded that an error was made. Even if that were the

case, however, the discussion of claim differentiation merely

supports the claim construction that was based on the language of

the specification. Therefore, any error would not change the

holding in the claim construction order.

ATTC also contends that the court improperly construed the

phrase “radius of curvature” as used in the ‘510 patent to mean a

sharp corner without including the reference to another patent

that ATTC had urged. ATTC proposed the language “sharp corner.” 

The reference to another patent by means of the comparison that

ATTC proposed is not supported by the ‘510 patent specification

or any other intrinsic evidence. Therefore, the court rejected

that meaning.

On page 23 of the order, the court used the phrase “sharp

angle” to define “radius of curvature.” ATTC is correct that the

term “radius of curvature” was construed to mean a curve as

distinguished from a sharp corner. Therefore, “angle” should be

changed to corner.

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 162 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 153) is granted to the extent that

the word “angle” used on page 23 of the claim construction order

(document no. 152) is changed to “corner,” and the motion is

otherwise denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 20, 2008

cc: Jacob K. Baron, Esquire

Steven M. Bauer, Esquire

Seth M. Cannon, Esquire

Joseph A. Capraro, Jr., Esquire

Jeffery M. Cross, Esquire

Joseph T. Dattilo, Esquire

Myriah M. Gambrell-Glenn, Esquire

John P. Guenther, Esquire

Jamie N. Hage, Esquire

Nicholas K. Holmes, Esquire

Rhett R. Krulla, Esquire

Jonathan A. Lax, Esquire

Barbara L. Mandell, Esquire

Richard C. Nelson, Esquire

W. Scott O'Connell, Esquire

Jeremy P. Oczek, Esquire

Allan J. Sternstein, Esquire

John M. Skeriotis

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 162 Filed 03/20/08 Page 3 of 3