Table Of ContentChemistry and Patent Law:
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions 2000−2020
1363
ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES
Chemistry and Patent Law:
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions 2000−2020
Richard G. A. Bone,Editor
Senior Patent Counsel
South San Francisco, California, United States
Sponsored by the
ACS Division of Chemistry and the Law
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: United States. Supreme Court. | Bone, Richard G. A., editor.
Title: Chemistry and patent law : U.S. Supreme Court decisions 2000-2020 /
Richard G.A. Bone, Senior Patent Counsel, South San Francisco,
California, United States, editor ; sponsored by the ACS Division of
Chemistry and the Law.
Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2021] | Series:
ACS symposium series ; 1363 | Includes bibliographical references and
index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020046029 (print) | LCCN 2020046030 (ebook) | ISBN
9780841298729 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780841298712 (ebook other)
Subjects: LCSH: Patent laws and legislation--United States--Cases. |
Chemistry--Patents--Cases.
Classification: LCC KF3105 .U545 2021 (print) | LCC KF3105 (ebook) | DDC
346.7304/86--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020046029
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020046030
ThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofAmericanNationalStandardforInformation
Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48n1984.
Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society
AllRightsReserved.ReprographiccopyingbeyondthatpermittedbySections107or108oftheU.S.CopyrightAct
isallowedforinternaluseonly,providedthataper-chapterfeeof$40.25plus$0.75perpageispaidtotheCopyright
ClearanceCenter,Inc.,222RosewoodDrive,Danvers,MA01923,USA.Republicationorreproductionforsaleofpagesin
thisbookispermittedonlyunderlicensefromACS.DirecttheseandotherpermissionrequeststoACSCopyrightOffice,
Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
Thecitationoftradenamesand/ornamesofmanufacturersinthispublicationisnottobeconstruedasanendorsementor
asapprovalbyACSofthecommercialproductsorservicesreferencedherein;norshouldthemerereferencehereintoany
drawing,specification,chemicalprocess,orotherdataberegardedasalicenseorasaconveyanceofanyrightorpermission
totheholder,reader,oranyotherpersonorcorporation,tomanufacture,reproduce,use,orsellanypatentedinventionor
copyrightedworkthatmayinanywayberelatedthereto.Registerednames,trademarks,etc.,usedinthispublication,even
without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Foreword
TheACSSymposiumSeriesisanestablishedprogramthatpublisheshigh-qualityvolumesof
thematicmanuscripts.Forover40years,theACSSymposiumSerieshasbeendeliveringessential
research from world leading scientists, including 36 Chemistry Nobel Laureates, to audiences
spanning disciplines and applications.
BooksaredevelopedfromsuccessfulsymposiasponsoredbytheACSorotherorganizations.
Topics span the entirety of chemistry, including applications, basic research, and interdisciplinary
reviews.
Beforeagreeingtopublishabook,prospectiveeditorssubmitaproposal,includingatableof
contents. The proposal is reviewed for originality, coverage, and interest to the audience. Some
manuscripts may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to aid
comprehensiveness. All chapters are peer reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection.
Asarule,onlyoriginalresearchpapersandoriginalreviewpapersareincludedinthevolumes.
Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers are not accepted.
ACS Books
Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Glossary and Citation Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Patent System:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Richard G. A. Bone
2. Merck v. Integraand the Patent Infringement Safe Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Karen I. Boyd
3. The U.S. Supreme Court Teaches How to Decide When an Invention Is Obvious. . . . . . . . . 41
Xavier Pillai
4. Has the Sun Set for Life Science Patents?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Jeremy A. Cubert
5. Into the Abstract:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Richard G. A. Bone
6. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.: Indefiniteness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Diana Mederos
7. One Patent Claim vs. Multiple Actors:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Rahul Pathak
8. Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticalsand the Evolving On Sale Bar to
Patentability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Justin L. Krieger
9. Supreme Court Decisions Involving Inter Partes Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Katherine A. Rubino and R. Brice Turner
Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Richard G. A. Bone
Editor’s Biography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Indexes
Author Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Subject Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
vii
Preface
Sincetheturnofthe21stcentury,theU.S.SupremeCourthasdecidedmorecasesthataffect
holdersofU.S.patentsthaninanycomparablepriorperiodintheCourt’shistory.Thisreflectsin
partarecognitionoftheimportanceofintellectualpropertyrightsinthemoderneconomy.Butit
alsostandsagainstabackdropofamarkedincreaseinthenumberofpatentsgranted,majorlegislative
changestothepatentsystemintheformofthe2011AmericaInventsAct,andanumberofhigh
profile, intensely fought, patent infringement litigations in industries critical to the new economy.
The essence of this book is to bring together in one place a detailed review of a number of
the more significant Supreme Court decisions that have affected U.S. patent law since 2000. The
decisionshavebeenselectedbecausetheyaffectcoreprinciplesofpatentlawsuchasobviousness
orpatenteligibility,orbecausetheyariseoutofdisputesbetweenpartiesinthechemicalandlife-
sciences sectors. Thus the cases directly involve chemical subject matter or have significant
ramifications for chemists using the patent system.
Theideaforthisbookarosefromanumberofthemedsessionsthatwerepresentedwithinthe
ChemistryandtheLaw(CHAL)Division’stechnicalprogrammingatACSNationalMeetingsinSan
Francisco,in2006,2010,2014and2017.Atthe2020FallNationalMeeting—originallyscheduled
tobeinSanFrancisco,butheldvirtually—thethemecontinued,thoughnotallofthecasesdiscussed
thisyearcouldmakeitintothebook.Whileseveralofthechapterauthorshadpreviouslypresented
on the same material at an ACS national meeting, many of the other presenters on those prior
occasions were not able to contribute to this book or could not now be reached.
Thus,unlikemanyoftheACS’sother“Symposium”publications,thisbookwasnotbornout
ofasinglemeetingbutinsteadassemblesandassimilatesmaterialsfromseveralsuchmeetingsover
morethanadecade.Thereasonforthisisalmostoneofnecessity:theSupremeCourtdoesnottake
upenoughpatentcasesinagivenyeartoprovidesufficient“fresh”materialforanentirebookevery
couple of years.
Additionally,theimpactoftheCourt’sdecisionsinpatentlawoftentakesmanyyearstobefelt.
So,itcanbeusefultoreviewtheimpactofe.g.,a2007decision,morethanadecadelaterandstill
provide comment that is relevant to current practice.
The U.S. patent statutes are mostly written in a technology-neutral manner. This means that
when the Supreme Court decides a particular issue that arose from a dispute in one technical
discipline, the language of the Court’s reasoning is rarely limited to that discipline. Hence, when
the Court decides an issue of patent law arising in technical fields far from the chemical arts, its
holdingappliestoallpatentees,nolessthoseinendeavorscentraltochemistryandthelifesciences.
Furthermore,althoughtheoverwhelmingmajorityofthepatentsystem’sstakeholdersdonotendup
aslitigantsbeforetheSupremeCourt,theyareneverthelessaffectedbytheCourt’sdecisions.When
theU.S.PatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)adjustsitsexaminationstandardsandpracticesin
thefaceofaSupremeCourtdecision,andwhenthelowerappellateanddistrictcourtsareobligedto
follow the Supreme Court’s guidance in rendering their own decisions, allcomers are affected.
Since 2000, the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to address issues that arise from many
different sections of the patent statutes, including: many of the basic standards for patentability,
ix
