Southern Phosphate Corp. v. Phosphate Recovery Corp.

Third Circuit

Southern Phosphate Corp. v. Phosphate Recovery Corp.

102 F.2d 801, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 65, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3948

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1939

DocketNo. 6552

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 102 F.2d 801 (Southern Phosphate Corp. v. Phosphate Recovery Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Phosphate Corp. v. Phosphate Recovery Corp., 102 F.2d 801, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 65, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3948 (3d Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinions

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the plaintiff, assignee of patent No. 1,467,354, granted September 11, 1923, to Niels C. Christensen, for “Process of Concentrating Oxidized Ores and Minerals”, brought suit against defendant charging infringement by reason of defendant’s practice of the process disclosed in the Chapman-Little-ford patent.

The two patents, viz., Christensen’s and Chapman-Littleford’s, were considered by the court below in our No. 6498, 102 F.2d 791, and it was there held that Christensen did not anticipate Chapman-Littleford.

On hearing, this court, holding the Chapman-Littleford patent valid and infringed, affirmed the decree dismissing the bill. In view of the several opinions of the court below and of this court, we find no error in the court’s dismissal of the present suit. Christensen’s patent, made some eleven years before Chapman-Littleford’s, made no impress on the art and as fin alleged anticipation of the Chapman-Little-ford patent wholly failed to measure up to the standard consistently maintained by this circuit, namely, “A patent relied upon as an anticipation must itself speak. Its specification must give in substance the same knowledge and the same directions as the specification of the patent in suit.” Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 31 F.2d 427, 431.

So holding, the decree below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the plaintiff, assignee of patent No. 1,467,354, granted September 11, 1923, to Niels C. Christensen, for “Process of Concentrating Oxidized Ores and Minerals”, brought suit against defendant charging infringement by reason of defendant’s practice of the process disclosed in the Chapman-Little-ford patent.

The two patents, viz., Christensen’s and Chapman-Littleford’s, were considered by the court below in our No. 6498, 102 F.2d 791, and it was there held that Christensen did not anticipate Chapman-Littleford.

On hearing, this court, holding the Chapman-Littleford patent valid and infringed, affirmed the decree dismissing the bill. In view of the several opinions of the court below and of this court, we find no error in the court’s dismissal of the present suit. Christensen’s patent, made some eleven years before Chapman-Littleford’s, made no impress on the art and as fin alleged anticipation of the Chapman-Little-ford patent wholly failed to measure up to the standard consistently maintained by this circuit, namely, “A patent relied upon as an anticipation must itself speak. Its specification must give in substance the same knowledge and the same directions as the specification of the patent in suit.” Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 31 F.2d 427, 431.

So holding, the decree below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 F.2d 801, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 65, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-phosphate-corp-v-phosphate-recovery-corp-ca3-1939.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack