Quarterly Journal Volume 54, Issue 1 February 2026

The on-sale bar, under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1), does not allow an inventor to obtain a patent if they sell their invention more than one year before they file a patent application. This Note explores the Federal Circuit's interpretation in Celanese v. Int’l. Corp. v. ITC , which held that sales of products made using secret processes trigger the on-sale bar, invalidating later process patent claims. The analysis argues that Celanese's interpretation contradicts the America Invents Act's plain language, which requires the "claimed invention" itself to be on sale and "available to the public." The Note considers how the Supreme Court's Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. decision, which Celanese relies upon, addressed a narrower question and does not support Celanese's broader interpretation. The Note then proposes a specific legislative solution through an amendment to § 102(a)(1) that would create a carveout for method claims when product sales don't disclose the underlying process, thereby promoting international harmonization of international patent standards and creating a more level playing field for small companies that face barriers under the current interpretation.

This Note uses the Second Circuit’s 2023 decision in Kerson v. Vermont Law School, 79 F.4th 257, as a jumping off point to consider the scope and purpose of the moral rights provision of the United States Copyright Act, the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”). Specifically, this Note addresses VARA’s contours in the context of the responsibility cultural institutions have to the public to preserve, and occasionally wrestle with, creative works. Furthermore, this Note analyzes the Second Circuit’s analysis of “destruction” in Kerson, proposing future modes of analysis that better address the full breadth of an artist’s work.