or soldering and 3: Liquid compass built under conditions 1 and 2, and 4: the needle chamber is made entirely of celluloid or other substance like it. Now the application included the fabrication method. On 11 September 1934 Vohlonen made another supplement, which included the same as the previous, only rephrased. On 25 January 1935 Vohlonen was granted a patent number 16285 for a method of manufacturing a liquid compass and a liquid compass manufactured accordingly. The patent was effective from the date of first application, 10 April 1933. In November 1932 a Swedish company Nya Instrumentfabriks Aktiebolaget Lyth had applied for a patent also in Finland for "vätskekompass", a liquid filled compass. In the application the needle chamber was described as being built of two different materials, of which only the upper part was made of flexible material. Nothing was mentioned about method of fabrication. This caused a threat and delay for accepting Vohlonen's patent. However, these applications were not considered to be about the same kind of product, so both Vohlonen and Lyth were granted a patent. This is one of the reasons why Vohlonen had to supplement his application: he knew the original formulation wouldn't succeed. Oy Physica AB, a Finnish company, had made compasses under license by Vohlonen, and these resembled heavily the original Suunto M-311, only minor changes were made. The license expired in 1935. In a publication by Metos Oy about their company history it is said: In the same premises as Metos Oy, a sister company administrated by same owners, Oy Physica Ab was a supplier for Finnish military forces. It employed about 20 people. The most significant article for Physica was a compass, competing the market with Suunto Oy. Physica sued Vohlonen, because, according to them, the supplements described a totally different product, the original application didn’t mention anything about a manufacturing method and, in addition, the method was elsewhere used long before the patent application, thus, the patent should be cancelled. On 27 September 1940 the first stage of court gave a statement: It is not up to them to judge whether the patent was given according to faulty descriptions, thus the patent remains effective as it was. On 27 March 1942 the second stage of court gave a statement, according to which all the structures described in the patent were known before, and thus the patent shouldn’t have been granted,