The U.S. Supreme Court case Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 2018, revolved around the interpretation of the "on-sale" bar in patent law, which states that a product cannot be patented if it has been on sale for more than one year prior to the patent application date. Swiss pharmaceutical company Helsinn Healthcare had entered into a confidential agreement with another firm to market and distribute its anti-nausea drug over two years before applying for a patent. The court ruled unanimously against Helsinn, stating that this agreement constituted an 'on-sale' event even though specific details about the formulation were not made public at that time. This decision clarified that any commercial activity related to an invention before filing can potentially invalidate a subsequent patent under America Invents Act (AIA), regardless of whether or not such activities disclose all technical aspects of the invention.

In the dissenting opinion for Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Justice Gorsuch argued that the majority's interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA) was incorrect and overly broad, potentially stifling innovation rather than promoting it as intended by Congress. He contended that a "sale" should only invalidate a patent if it made the invention available to the general public before filing date, which did not occur in this case since details of Helsinn’s formulation were not disclosed in their agreement with MGI Pharma Inc. Therefore, he believed that such private sales or uses should be exempt from being considered prior art under AIA because they do not contribute to public knowledge about an invention.