In Range of Motion Prods., LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., No. 2023-2427 (Fed. Cir. Feb 2, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Armaid.
Range of Motion Products (“RoM”) accused Armaid of infringing Design Patent No. D802,155 (the “D'155 patent”),which claims the ornamental design for a body massaging apparatus. After construing the claim to its ornamental elements, the district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the design of the accused product substantially similar to the claimed design. RoMtimely appealed.
RoM argued that, even under the district court's claim construction, the accused product is similar enough to the claimed design to withstand summary judgment.The majority rejected this argument, emphasizing that a proper “ordinary observer” test under Egyptian Goddessincludesexamining whether the claimed and accused designs are “sufficiently distinct”and “plainly dissimilar.”Applying this test, the majorityaffirmed thedistrict court's summary judgment of non-infringement.
Chief Judge Moore dissented, noting how the Court's decision in Egyptian Goddessunwittingly“changed the frame of reference” of the ordinary observer test from whether two designs are substantially similarto whether two designs are plainly dissimilar. Chief Judge Moore illustrated how the outcome may change depending on whether the fact finder focuses on differences rather than the overall similarity of the claimed and accused designs.She noted that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a much broader trend.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
