Hypertherm v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Plasma Cutting Patents
Hypertherm, Inc. brought a three-patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers distributing counterfeit Powermax electrode consumables (part no. 220842). The court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction covering Amazon, Walmart, and eBay accounts — resolving the case in 314 days.
Hypertherm’s Schedule A action ends in sweeping default judgment and marketplace freeze
Hypertherm, Inc., the New Hampshire-based industrial cutting technology company, filed suit on 1 November 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an unidentified group of individuals, partnerships, and unincorporated associations designated as Schedule A defendants. The complaint alleged infringement of three U.S. patents — US8115136B2, US8546718B2, and US8541712B2 — covering plasma arc cutting electrode and consumable technology used in Hypertherm’s Powermax and MAX systems. The accused products centred on counterfeit versions of electrode part number 220842, sold through third-party storefronts on Amazon, Walmart, and eBay.
The case closed on 11 September 2025 via default judgment — a procedural outcome that arises when defendants fail to appear or respond to the complaint. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman granted Hypertherm’s motion for entry of default judgment in part and denied it in part, entering final judgment on the infringement claims and issuing a broad permanent injunction. The injunction restrains all defaulting defendants from making, using, importing, offering for sale, or selling infringing products and extends to their online marketplace accounts, affiliated payment processors, and any successor entities or storefronts created to circumvent the order.
The 314-day resolution is consistent with the pace of Schedule A enforcement actions, which are designed for rapid takedown of anonymous e-commerce infringers and often conclude without substantive merits litigation. The partial grant of the default judgment motion suggests the court may have narrowed the requested relief — a common judicial check in uncontested proceedings to ensure proportionality. The public record does not disclose whether any damages were awarded or which specific defendants were ultimately identified, leaving the full commercial scope of the enforcement uncertain.
Filing to Default Judgment in 314 days
314 days from filing to default judgment — faster than typical N.D. Ill. patent dispositions
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: infringement established without merits contest
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true for liability purposes. Here, infringement of all three plasma cutting patents was established by default — not by trial. The partial grant indicates the court exercised discretion to tailor the relief, a standard judicial check in uncontested IP proceedings.
Rule 55 — no merits adjudicationHypertherm wins permanent injunction across all major marketplaces
Hypertherm secured a permanent injunction barring all defaulting defendants from selling electrode part 220842 counterfeits on Amazon, Walmart, and eBay. Third-party providers — including payment processors and marketplace platforms — are required to disable infringing accounts within three business days of notice. This enforcement architecture is designed to deny counterfeiters access to e-commerce infrastructure, not merely remove individual listings.
Permanent injunction — marketplace-wideBroad injunction extends to successor accounts and new entities
The order expressly prohibits defaulting defendants from forming new entities or using alternative storefronts to circumvent the injunction — a provision specifically targeting the common tactic of ‘whack-a-mole’ re-registration by counterfeit sellers. Any third party with actual notice of the order is bound. The partial denial of the default motion suggests some requested relief — potentially damages or certain defendants — was not granted, though specifics are not disclosed in the public record.
Anti-evasion provisions includedSchedule A actions reinforce Hypertherm’s consumables market position
Plasma cutting consumables are a high-margin recurring revenue stream for OEMs like Hypertherm. Counterfeit consumables erode both revenue and brand trust, particularly where inferior electrodes can damage genuine torch systems. The default judgment reinforces Hypertherm’s ability to use Schedule A enforcement as a scalable anti-counterfeiting strategy across e-commerce platforms, consistent with a broader industry trend of using IP litigation to police third-party marketplace sellers.
Consumables IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hypertherm, Inc. | Company | Industrial plasma cutting technology company — holder of US8115136B2, US8546718B2, US8541712B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers distributing counterfeit Powermax electrode consumablesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian N. Platt | Attorney | Counsel for Hypertherm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Collin Hansen | Attorney | Counsel for Hypertherm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth J Dyer | Attorney | Counsel for Hypertherm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Workman Nydegger PC | Law Firm | Representing Hypertherm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict reflects a partial grant of default judgment — a meaningful qualifier in Schedule A practice. While liability on all three infringement claims was established by the court’s acceptance of Hypertherm’s well-pleaded allegations, the partial denial indicates the court exercised independent review of the requested relief, likely narrowing damages, defendant scope, or specific injunction provisions. The permanent injunction’s extension to payment processors and platform operators is substantively significant, effectively severing defaulting defendants from e-commerce infrastructure rather than merely removing individual product listings.
US8115136B2, US8546718B2 & US8541712B2 — Plasma Arc Cutting Electrode Technology
The three asserted patents — US8115136B2, US8546718B2, and US8541712B2 — cover plasma arc cutting electrode and consumable technology embodied in Hypertherm’s Powermax and MAX torch product lines. The specific accused product, electrode part number 220842, is a DuraMax/DuraMax Lock series consumable rated for 10–105A cutting applications. These patents protect design and performance characteristics of cutting electrodes that directly affect cut quality, torch longevity, and system compatibility — core competitive attributes in the industrial plasma cutting market.
For Hypertherm, which has built a dominant position in the plasma cutting consumables market, these patents represent a critical barrier to counterfeit and third-party compatible consumable competition. Counterfeit electrodes that replicate the protected design without authorisation not only infringe Hypertherm’s IP but can also damage genuine torch hardware, creating product liability exposure that reinforces Hypertherm’s incentive to enforce aggressively. The three-patent stack suggests a deliberate strategy to create overlapping claim coverage that is difficult to design around.
Should you run an FTO against US8115136B2, US8546718B2, and US8541712B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing plasma arc cutting electrode consumables compatible with Hypertherm Powermax or MAX torch systems should treat these three patents as active enforcement risk. The default judgment confirms Hypertherm is actively monitoring and acting against third-party electrode sellers on major e-commerce platforms. Suppliers to Amazon, Walmart, or eBay marketplace sellers — and the platforms themselves — now have constructive notice of Hypertherm’s enforcement posture in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of all three patents against your electrode design specifications, identify prior art that may support validity challenges, and flag related Hypertherm patent family members that could extend infringement risk. For consumables teams and procurement counsel, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools provide real-time alerts to new Hypertherm filings in the plasma cutting space — enabling proactive design-around decisions before enforcement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8115136B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement actions in plasma cutting and industrial consumables
Explore comparable Schedule A infringement actions filed in N.D. Illinois targeting counterfeit industrial consumables and plasma cutting accessories sold through e-commerce platforms.
What this case signals for the plasma cutting and industrial consumables IP landscape
Hypertherm’s Schedule A action demonstrates how OEMs are using patent litigation architecture to systematically disrupt counterfeit consumable supply chains on major e-commerce platforms.
Schedule A patent actions are a scalable enforcement model for consumables OEMs
By aggregating anonymous marketplace sellers into a single Schedule A complaint, Hypertherm achieved a permanent injunction against an entire distribution network in under a year. For OEMs with high-volume consumables businesses, this model offers a cost-effective alternative to individual infringer identification — particularly where counterfeits are sold through common platforms like Amazon and eBay.
Third-party platform liability provisions are now standard in Schedule A orders
The injunction’s direct obligations on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, and payment processors — requiring account disablement within three business days — reflects an evolved enforcement standard in N.D. Illinois Schedule A practice. IP teams at companies with e-commerce exposure should treat platform-level injunctions as a primary enforcement tool, not a secondary remedy.
Hypertherm v Individuals — key questions answered
Hypertherm asserted three U.S. patents: US8115136B2, US8546718B2, and US8541712B2. All three cover plasma arc cutting electrode and consumable technology used in Hypertherm’s Powermax and MAX torch systems, specifically embodied in electrode part number 220842.
A Schedule A action allows a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous online marketplace sellers in a single complaint by listing them in an attached Schedule A exhibit rather than naming them individually in the caption. This approach is common in N.D. Illinois for cases targeting counterfeit product sellers on platforms like Amazon, Walmart, and eBay whose identities are initially unknown.
The default judgment entered final judgment for Hypertherm on all patent infringement claims and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting defaulting defendants from making, using, importing, offering for sale, or selling infringing products. It also required third-party platforms and payment processors — including Amazon, Walmart, and eBay — to disable infringing accounts within three business days of receiving notice.
The public record indicates the motion was granted in part and denied in part, but does not specify which elements were denied. In N.D. Illinois Schedule A practice, courts routinely exercise independent review of requested relief even without defendant opposition, commonly narrowing damages awards, limiting injunction scope, or excluding certain defendants from the final order where the record is insufficient.
Part number 220842 is a Hypertherm DuraMax/DuraMax Lock series plasma arc cutting electrode rated for 10–105A systems including the Powermax65. It is a genuine Hypertherm consumable protected by the three asserted patents. Counterfeit versions of this specific part, sold by Schedule A defendants on major e-commerce platforms, formed the basis of the infringement allegations in this action.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.