Sarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
Side note: The USPTO will issue design patents for typefaces. They shouldn't, IMO. But they do.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:elqmpiclake3eojibhi73fb4/post/3lqaj7vpkfk23
The Fashion Law (@tfl.bsky.social)

A lawsuit over a popular font trio raises key questions about digital authorship and copyright protection. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/computers-v-creativity-a-case-over-modern-typeface-designs/

Bluesky Social
Show threadSarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
Getting questions about this so I'll add: Design patents are issued for the shapes of the letters, not the underlying software (or physical type-fonts).
Show threadSarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
Here's an example. Notice that the convention is to call it a design for a "font" but it's not. It's really a design for the typeface.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ihqsgbh37qvgpxa5q6quagqc/post/3lq5y3dwd222w
Meredith Lowry (@meredithlowry.bsky.social)

Today in design patents: D1077044 issued for a type font. #DesignPatents

Bluesky Social
Show threadSarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
This is a problem because 35 U.S.C. § 171 only says the U.S. can issue a design patent for a "design FOR an article of manufacture." A patent for a typeface per se (which is what the USPTO currently grants) isn't proper statutory subject matter.
Show threadSarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
Side note: An "article of manufacture" is not the same as a "useful article" (as the latter is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101). For more on AoMs, see: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

The 'Article of Manufacture' i...
The 'Article of Manufacture' in 1887

One of the most important questions in contemporary design patent law is how to interpret the phrase “article of manufacture” in 35 U.S.C. § 289. While there ha

Show threadSarah Fackrell
Anyway, expanding design patent protection to typefaces was bad enough. But now, some people are trying to use that precedent to totally rewrite 35 U.S.C. § 171 to cover other disembodied designs. For more on that, see: www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-...

Regulations.gov
Regulations.gov

May 28, 2025 at 4:16pmWeb
Show threadSarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
Key point: Copyright already protects disembodied designs--assuming they can meet copyright's (low!) standards. Copyright is free. So why would people want to pay (a lot) more to get design patents? Among other reasons, it's to get protection for #SubFeistDesigns. See generally:

Uncreative Designs
Uncreative Designs

It is often said that the standards for patent protection are higher than the standards for copyright protection. Specifically, commentators assert that the cop

Show threadSarah FackrellMay 28, 2025
At a recent USPTO event, one attorney had a hilariously bad response to the question of why they need DPs when they already have copyright. He was just like: "Well, copyright is DIFFERENT." Wow. Really pwned me there.