Opinions — Monday, February 2, 2026

The Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Maine's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Armaid Company Inc. against Range of Motion Products, LLC, which alleged that Armaid's Armaid2 massage device infringed U.S. Design Patent No. D802,155 claiming an ornamental design for a body massaging apparatus. The central dispute concerned whether the district court properly construed the D'155 patent by identifying certain design features—specifically the "clamshell" shape of the device's arms—as functional rather than ornamental, thereby narrowing the claim scope and concluding that no reasonable jury could find the Armaid2 substantially similar to the claimed design. RoM challenged the claim construction on the ground that the district court improperly eliminated entire structural elements from the claimed design, arguing that the intrinsic evidence (particularly the solid lines in the patent drawings and the existence of the prior art Armaid1 as an alternative design) unambiguously demonstrated that the arm shape was ornamental. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, holding that design patent drawings do not categorically delineate functional from ornamental features and that a design element may have both functional and ornamental aspects, such that courts may properly apply the PHG Technologies factors to assess functionality even when a design patent has issued.

The decision reinforces that courts conducting design patent claim construction retain authority to parse functional from ornamental aspects of claimed designs using extrinsic evidence, rather than treating patent drawings or examiner determinations as dispositive. The majority clarified that the existence of alternative designs, while an important PHG factor that can be dispositive, does not operate as a threshold inquiry that precludes consideration of other functionality evidence, rejecting RoM's reading of Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. Covidien as establishing such a rule. Chief Judge Moore dissented, arguing that the majority misapplied the ordinary observer test by conducting what amounted to a point-of-novelty analysis focused on differences rather than assessing overall similarity, and that genuine disputes of material fact regarding the significance of design differences to an ordinary observer precluded summary judgment. The majority's approach gives district courts substantial latitude to narrow design patent claims through functionality findings at the claim construction stage, potentially facilitating earlier resolution of design patent cases on summary judgment where functional considerations dominate the claimed design.