The US Supreme Court heard two oral arguments on Tuesday: Biestek v. Berryhill and Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.

At issue in Biestek, a disability benefits case, was “Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of ‘other work,'” if the expert did not provide the data supporting this position, although requested to do so. The petitioner argued that the expert’s “testimony can only be based on statistical data-driven sources” and that without such statistics, the testimony is unpersuasive. He also argued that his position was consistent with the Social Security Administration’s Vocational Expert Handbook. The respondent argued that the petitioner chose not to cross-examine, and the petitioner could have determined the sufficiency of the evidence through questioning. The respondent also said that the substantial evidence rule did not require the vocational expert to show the process of arriving at their conclusions, which the respondent termed “procedural.”

At issue in the second case is whether the “on-sale bar” prohibiting a patent on an invention that has been on sale for over a year, applies to inventions that have been on sale to purchasers who are required to keep their details confidential. The petitioner argued that the statute required the invention be “on sale” to the general public, which it was not. An amicus curiae supporting the petitioner said that the invention was not on sale because the purchaser did not use the invention for its intended purpose. The respondent claimed that the invention was on sale to the public because the court has consistently used the definition “A product that is sold or offered for commercial sale is on sale.”