Can a client claim intellectual property rights for a layout that address the visually-impaired?
<p>We have a design that places four, global utility links at the corners of the screen (Settings, Menu, Home, Back.) The idea being that visually impaired users can find these buttons by referring to their physical corner locations.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZbhK.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZbhK.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Can a client claim that this technique or strategy as intellectual property (being their own original, proprietary design)?</p>
<p>This is to settle a debate here in the office.</p>

<p>Generally, this question is not a singular inquiry as its wording may suggest on its face. What typically tends to come up as the subject of dispute is rooted in the urban legend that one cannot obtain a patent (utility) on software. This is substantially incorrect, and any patent attorney asserting to the veracity of this makes a substantially false conclusory statement of law knowingly and willfully controverting the actual state of law in, at least, all Western jurisdictions as it omits to assert to the fact that one is not barred to obtain a patent on any system that comprises of non-obvious software, and hardware to run on is entitled to a patent — except in the U.S. where one must also comply with the <em>Alice</em> decision requiring that at least one hardware component in addition to the hardware of a generic computer be necessary for the utility of the system. However, in the U.S., one may obtain a software-centered patent through a (i) method or (ii) a computer program product in addition to (iii) systems or apparatuses which are available avenues for patents everywhere else.</p>
<p>When disputes around IP and software come up, this is typically at the crux of the debate: May one obtain a software patent? The answer is: One is not barred merely because the non-obvious aspect of an invention is software. For example, if one uses hardware that are prior art, in fact, patented to someone else, but by the use of software a system, method and/or computer program product achieves a different objective (since utility patents, axiomatically, must have a utility objective) one may obtain a patent, and a layman may very well consider their invention of the system as that particular component that appears to them as having required any inventive steps, encompasses the inventive novelty (understandably) which, in many cases may be software.</p>
<p>So the advice from a patent attorney that “you can’t patent software” is simply malicious (or wide and far disbarringly incompetent).</p>
<p>One may patent software so long as it is an invention, and the administrative (or at times judicial) process requirements are complied with.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, since the question inquired about “IP”, below is the answer to other avenues of intellectual property.</p>
<p><strong>Copyrights</strong></p>
<p>The software code written to make this operable could be the subject of copyright as long as it is not substantially identical with another solution (or such to give reasons to believe it to be a derivative thereof) that also put buttons in the four corners.</p>
<p>The visual design may possibly also enjoy copyright protection, but that is less plausible to imagine since not only the copyrighted work of art is protected, but anything that may objectively be deemed a derivative work (regardless of whether the “re-author” actually knew about the copyrighted material that it may be deemed the derivate of).</p>
<p><strong>Design patents</strong></p>
<p>It is possible that one could get design patents for the actual graphical design of the layout provided there isn’t something substantially similar already out there protected by a design patent.</p>
<p><strong>Utility patents</strong></p>
<p>This would most certainly not overcome obviousness, that is, the requirement for one to obtain a patent which needs that a presented invention not be obvious for anyone “with ordinary skill in the art” (an ordinarily knowledgable person in the field of the specific area of tech).</p>
<p><strong>Trademark</strong></p>
<p>I have a hard time stretching my imagination to see how this could be applicable.</p>

intellectual-property