Rethinking Design Patents for Digital Products

Today we’re diving into new supplemental guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office that could have an effect on how design patents are drafted for digital products. On March 13, 2026, the USPTO published this guidance in the Federal Register specifically addressing design patent applications claiming computer-generated interfaces, icons, and even holograms. 

Read the article

• USPTO Issues Supplemental Guidance on Design Patents for Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons

Abou the authors

• Alex Wharton
• Jacob Wharton

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

Host 1:
Today we’re diving into new supplemental guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office that could have an effect on how design patents are drafted for digital products. On March 13, 2026, the USPTO published this guidance in the Federal Register specifically addressing design patent applications claiming computer-generated interfaces, icons, and even holograms.

Host 2:
The goal with this guidance is clarity and flexibility. The USPTO is responding to ongoing questions about how digital designs fit within the statutory framework of design patents. This guidance is intended to help applicants better understand what qualifies as statutory subject matter, while also giving them more options in how they present their designs.

Host 1:
One of the most notable changes is the removal of the requirement that a computer-generated design always be shown as embodied in a specific physical article. In other words, applicants no longer have to tie their design to a particular device in every case. Instead, a design may be presented as a computer-generated electronic image.

Host 2:
That said, the USPTO hasn’t abandoned the article of manufacture requirement altogether. The claim and the drawings still need to make clear that the design is embodied in an article of manufacture. So while there’s more flexibility, applicants still have to show that the design isn’t just an abstract concept.

Host 1:
The guidance also reaffirms that computer-generated interfaces and icons remain eligible for design patent protection. As before, they must be new, original, and ornamental, and they must satisfy certain statutory requirements. This confirmation is important, especially given the growing importance of digital design.

Host 2:
Exactly, and the USPTO goes a step further by explicitly including projections and holograms within the scope of computer-generated interfaces. These can qualify for protection when they’re separate from the computer or display that generates them and when they’re more than a transient or disembodied image.

Host 1:
Another key aspect of the guidance is how applicants can depict their designs. The USPTO emphasizes flexibility in drawing presentation, including the continued use of broken lines. Broken lines can be used to show environmental structure or portions of a display that aren’t part of the claimed design.

Host 2:
And despite all this flexibility, the USPTO makes clear that examination will still focus on whether the claimed subject matter is directed to a statutory article of manufacture. So the core legal inquiry remains the same, even if the presentation options have expanded.

Host 1:
From a practical standpoint, this guidance opens the door for applicants seeking protection for user interfaces, icons, and other digital designs. It may allow them to refine claim scope or adjust drawing strategies to better capture ornamental features, especially for dynamic or screen-based designs.

Host 2:
But the guidance also comes with a reminder. Practitioners still need to draft carefully, ensuring that the claimed design is clearly tied to an article of manufacture and fully supported by the drawings. Flexibility doesn’t replace precision.

Host 1:
In the end, the USPTO’s March 2026 supplemental guidance represents a meaningful clarification of examination practice. By relaxing certain presentation requirements while maintaining statutory boundaries, the Office is aiming for greater predictability.

Host 2:
And for applicants in the digital space, that could translate into broader and more effective design patent protection. It’s a development worth close attention as digital products continue to evolve.

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.