SUPREME COURT RULING: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ____ (2019)
Contributed by Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
LATEST FROM THE SUPREME COURT
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ____ (2019)
Today, the Supreme Court addressed the extent of the “on-sale” bar following the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), and held that the change in language in Section 102 did not change the requirements for an invention to be considered “on sale.”
Under the pre-AIA version of Section 102(b), “[a] person shall not be entitled to a patent unless … (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”
The Supreme Court had previously held in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998) that an invention was “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA Section 102 when it was “the subject of a commercial offer for sale” and “ready for patenting.”
In 2011, Congress passed the AIA, changing section 102, section (a) of which now reads: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Written by: Scott D. Eads and Nika Aldrich, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
More insights
Skinny Labels at the Supreme Court: Carving Out Room for Generics to Breathe
Written by : Ari Feinstein and Zoe E. Vikstrom HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. et al. v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., et al. Jackson, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Summary:…
U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Patent Appeal Against Apple, Google, and LG
In a closely watched dispute that sits at the intersection of patent validity, administrative review, and high-stakes smartphone litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 2025, declined to hear an appeal brought by Gesture Technology Partners…
3-2-1 Blast Off: US Space Force Trademark Dispute Aims for the Supreme Court
Written by : Ian W. Gillies The trademark attorney Thomas D. Foster has found himself in ongoing legal star wars to register US SPACE FORCE as his personal trademark covering coins, jewelry, watches, license plate holders, toys, and other everyday goods.…