USPTO Design Claim Guidance Clarifies Digital Image Patentability
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.28.23
Design patents in the United States date all the way back to 1842, nearly 52 years after the first utility patent laws were passed in the Patent Act of 1790. The first U.S. design patent issued to George Bruce in 1842 and claimed a new printing typeface. Interestingly, the design patent was utterly devoid of art or images and featured only a written description of Mr. Bruce’s new typeface (for “Letters with Points, called in the printed impressions, New Double Small Pica Script, Two-line Long Primer Ornamented No. 3, Two-line Nonpareil Ornamented, and Long Primer Ornamented”). Even though this was 55 years before the first cathode ray tube display was publicly presented, and more than a century before the earliest LCD and LED technologies of modern display screens, it has served as a precedent that typefaces and other graphic displays are proper design patent subject matter. Design patents have enjoyed increasing popularity, jumping from only 12 other design patents issued in 1842 to about 15,000 design applications filed in 1995, and to a whopping 47,500 design filings in 2019. Not surprisingly, the steady rise in the number of design patent applications reflects meteoric advances in technology. And as noted by Director Vidal, because design patents have been shown to provide a “catalyst for growth” and a “competitive edge” for U.S. manufacturers, maintaining clear and current guidelines is crucial.
In an article published in Bloomberg Law, Trevor Copeland and April Barnard survey updated USPTO guidance to clarify when a computer-generated electronic image satisfies the article of manufacture requirement for patentability.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.16.26
In a significant decision for government contractors, on April 15, 2026, in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that bid protesters challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) need not satisfy the demanding four-factor test traditionally required for preliminary injunctive relief. In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified that CICA stay override challenges need only demonstrate that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious—nothing more.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.16.26
ROI Tracking as Mens Rea? Novartis Ruling Reframes AKS Pleading Risk
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.15.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow

