Verdegaal Brothers, Inc., William Verdegaal, George Verdegaal v. Union Oil Company of California, Brea Agricultural Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the patentee’s distinction was “inappropriate” because there was “no limitation -in the subject claims with respect to the rate at which sulfuric acid is added”
• holding claimed process for making fertilizer anticipated by a disclosure of the same process for making fertilizer even though prior art did not disclose the \inventive concept\
• claim element of “making a concen trated liquid fertilizer by reacting sulfuric acid and urea” taught by reference requiring the sulfuric acid to be “added slowly”
• claim element of “making a concentrated liquid fertilizer by reacting sulfuric acid and urea” taught by reference requiring the sulfuric acid to be “added slowly”
• irrespective of expert testimpny, the disclosures of the patent reference must be considered as evidence
• all limitations of the claims must be embodied by an anticipatory prior art reference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).