Case Name: SOUTHERN PHOSPHATE CORPORATION v. PHOSPHATE RECOVERY CORPORATION
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1939-02-14
Citations: 102 F.2d 801
Docket Number: No. 6552
Parties: SOUTHERN PHOSPHATE CORPORATION v. PHOSPHATE RECOVERY CORPORATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 102
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
SOUTHERN PHOSPHATE CORPORATION v. PHOSPHATE RECOVERY CORPORATION.
No. 6552.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 14, 1939.
William H. Davis and John F. Neary, both of New York City, and F.. Ennalls Berl, of Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del. (Robert H. Richards, of Wilmington, Del., and Henry D. Williams and Howard M. Morse, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.