Federal Circuit IP
Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.
Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.
No. 2023-2427 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)
(Moore, C.J., Hughes, and Cunningham) Precedential Design Patent Case
Issues: Whether the District Court (1) improperly narrowed the D’155 design claim by treating key features as functional, and (2) properly granted SJ of noninfringement under the ordinary observer test.
Holding: Affirmed. The District Court (1) properly distinguished functional vs. ornamental aspects of the design and (2) properly concluded that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused design and the claimed design are plainly dissimilar as a matter of law.
Background:
- RoM owns U.S. Design Patent No. D802,155 (“Body Massaging Apparatus”), embodied by RoM’s “Rolflex.” Armaid sells the accused Armaid2, and its product line traces back to the Armaid1, which was embodied by U.S. Patent No. 5,792,081 (“Limb Massager”).
- RoM sued Armaid alleging infringement.
- The District Court, viewing “many, but not all” design features as function driven, construed the claim narrowly and granted summary judgment that no reasonable jury could find Armaid2 substantially similar to D’155 under the ordinary observer test.
- RoM appealed.
Federal Circuit’s Analysis
Claim Construction: courts may “factor out” functional aspects without deleting structure.
- Design patent infringement involves (i) construing the claim and (ii) comparing the construed claim to the accused design under the ordinary observer test, and that where a design has both functional and nonfunctional elements, the claim scope is construed to identify the nonfunctional (ornamental) aspects.
- Applying PHG functionality factors, the court agreed the arm shape is function driven. Record evidence supported treating the “clamshell”/arm shape as functional, while still permitting consideration of ornamental aspects of those elements.
Ordinary Observer Test: Are the designs “plainly dissimilar?”
- The Federal Circuit rejected the approach of comparing designs without separating functional aspects. The ordinary observer must compare overall designs as properly construed, ensuring functional similarities don’t improperly expand design patent scope.
Dissent (Moore, C.J.)
Judge Moore would have reversed, arguing a reasonable jury could find substantial similarity and criticizing the court’s “plainly dissimilar/sufficiently distinct” framing as a drift from Gorham’s “substantially similar” focus, which (in her view) encourages difference hunting and drives more summary judgment noninfringement results.
Takeaway
- Anchor ordinary observer comparisons in the ornamental features that remain once function driven elements are discounted and evaluate similarity/dissimilarity based on that narrowed scope.