For several years, the most controversial part of the design patent world was patenting of portions of a display screen. But, things have moved forward with a steady flow of animated portions of a display screen. The chart above shows the year-over-year numbers of design patents issued claiming some form of an animated or transitional display. For 2024, the numbers are just for the first half of the year.
The MPEP identifies these as “changeable computer generated icons,” explaining that:
Computer generated icons including images that change in appearance during viewing may be the subject of a design claim. Such a claim may be shown in two or more views. The images are understood as viewed sequentially, no ornamental aspects are attributed to the process or period in which one image changes into another. A descriptive statement must be included in the specification describing the transitional nature of the design and making it clear that the scope of the claim does not include anything that is not shown.
MPEP 1504.01(a)(IV)
As the chart above shows, the USPTO began granting patents on animated icons in 2006 and has adopted an approach that requires animated designs be depicted in a series of static images showing the various states of the animation, with a description explaining the transitional nature of the design.
So far, the courts have not ruled on whether these animated designs are properly patentable. A big statutory issue is whether an animation on a display screen qualifies as “an article of manufacture” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 171, given their transient nature. In their 2013 article, Seymour and Torrance discuss this issue in some depth, arguing that even still images are not sufficiently fixed. “Computer-generated imagery consists of temporary images that have no tangible existence on, or within, a computer display.” Unlike physical objects or even static computer icons, animated designs exist only as fleeting images generated by the display device. This transience raises even larger questions about whether such designs qualify. William J. Seymour & Andrew W. Torrance, (R)evolution in Design Patentable Subject Matter: The Shifting Meaning of “Article of Manufacture”, 17 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 183 (2013). See also, David Leason, Design Patent Protection for Animated Computer-Generated Icons, 91 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 580 (2009) and Jason J. Du Mont & Mark D. Janis, Virtual Designs, 17 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 107 (2013).
In my experience, the animated designs take one of three related forms: (1) an animated icon — effectively working like a trademark; (2) an transitional animations showing some action, like the lock below in Philips USD1029879S1 or Apple’s slide-to-unlock (USD621849); or (3) a series of screenshots of someone using various aspects of a user interface, such as in Apple’s USD1016837 (below) apparently showing receiving an iPhone video call.
By way of background for the more youthful and not directly involved, the PTO for several years refused to grant design patents on computer screen display icons of any kind, not just animated GUIs as here, until reversed by an enlarged PTAB Board decision. That was “EX PARTE PAULIEN F. STRIJLAND AND DAVID SCHROIT Appeal No. 92-0623 April 2, 1992 HEARD: January 31, 1992.” Since Commissioner Manbeck was on that expanded Board panel, not surprisingly the Solicitor did not appeal its decision to the Fed. Cir. Thus, the PTO started allowing screen icons thereafter, as long as at least a broken away part of a screen was shown in the drawings or the icon is described and claimed as being on a screen.
+1
Given how “1 a z y” many are, perhaps “For 2024, the numbers are just for the first half of the year.” can be distinguished with a top half in line-only showing a projected full year amount.