Verdegaal Brothers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co.

814 F.2d 628 (1987)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Verdegaal Brothers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
814 F.2d 628 (1987)

Facts

Verdegaal Brothers, Inc. (Verdegaal) (plaintiff) owned U.S. Patent No. 4,310,343 (the ‘343 patent), which related to a liquid-fertilizer-making process. Claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ‘343 patent disclosed a process involving a chemical reaction between urea and sulfuric acid in the presence of a nonreactive heat sink (i.e., a batch of recycled fertilizer known as a “heel”). The process contemplated adding water to the heat sink in an amount not greater than 15 percent of the end product, adding urea in an amount at least 50 percent of the end product’s total weight, and adding sulfuric acid in an amount at least 10 percent of the end product’s total weight. Verdegaal sued Union Oil Company (defendant), asserting that Union Oil’s liquid-fertilizer-manufacturing processes infringed the ‘343 patent. A jury found that the ‘343 patent was valid and that Union Oil’s processes infringed claims 1, 2, and 4. Union Oil moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Union Oil argued that the ‘343 patent’s claims were invalid because they were anticipated by teachings found in the Stoller patent, which the jury had been instructed was prior art. The district court denied Union Oil’s motion, and Union Oil appealed. On appeal, Union Oil asserted that it had presented evidence showing that the Stoller patent detailed a process for making urea-sulfuric acid fertilizer by adding 15 percent water, 50 percent urea, and at least 10 percent sulfuric acid to a recycled-fertilizer heel. Verdegaal argued that (1) the Stoller patent did not anticipate Verdegaal’s patent because the Stoller patent’s method involved adding sulfuric acid slowly, while Verdegaal’s claimed process allowed for rapid addition of sulfuric acid, and (2) the Stoller patent did not explicitly identify the heel as a heat sink. However, (1) the relevant claims contained no limitations regarding how fast sulfuric acid could be added, and (2) the Stoller patent discussed the heel’s function as a heat sink given the reaction’s high temperature.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nies, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership