Chris Carani, Phil Ruben, and Sean Sparrow Provide an Update on Recent Design Patent Federal Circuit Decision
02.11.26
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement in Range of Motion Products LLC v. Armaid Co. Inc., concluding that the accused and claimed designs were “plainly dissimilar.” That conclusion drew a sharp dissent from Chief Judge Moore, who criticized the majority’s reliance on the “plainly dissimilar” standard as an improper vehicle for disposing of design patent infringement claims at summary judgment when genuine issues of fact remain. This piece examines the wrongheaded “plainly dissimilar” framework, one that has plagued design patent cases for nearly two decades, and the faulty premise underlying the majority’s decision: removing visual features of the overall claimed design under the guise of claim construction before conducting the infringement comparison. Together, these issues raise broader concerns about the proper roles of judges and fact-finders in design patent infringement cases.
Read the analysis here.