Background
Range of Motion Products, LLC accused Armaid Company Inc. of infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D802,155, which covers a design for a handheld massage device. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted summary judgment of noninfringement, concluding that no reasonable jury could find the patented and accused designs substantially the same under the ordinary-observer test.
A Federal Circuit panel affirmed that judgment, agreeing both that the designs were plainly dissimilar and that a comparison involving the prior art did not support infringement. Range of Motion then sought panel and en banc rehearing, challenging the court’s design-patent framework and its allocation of functionality and infringement issues between judges and juries.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit denied both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc after a requested poll of the active judges failed. The per curiam order therefore left intact the panel decision affirming summary judgment of noninfringement.
Judge Cunningham, joined by Judge Hughes, concurred in the denial. She reasoned that existing precedent permits courts to resolve design-patent infringement at summary judgment when no reasonable jury could find the designs substantially the same, and that claim construction—including determinations concerning functional and ornamental features—remains for the court. Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judge Reyna, dissented, arguing that functionality, ornamentality, and substantial similarity are fact-intensive issues that generally belong to the jury. Judges Stoll and Stark also dissented from the denial without opinion.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Circuit declined to rehear the case, leaving the panel’s affirmance of summary judgment of design-patent noninfringement in place.
- The concurrence maintained that courts may find noninfringement as a matter of law when claimed and accused designs are sufficiently distinct, including after considering similarities, differences, and prior art.
- The judges divided over whether courts or juries should evaluate functionality and ornamentality when defining and comparing a design patent’s protected scope.
Why It Matters
The denial preserves the Federal Circuit’s existing design-patent infringement framework. District courts may continue construing design-patent claims, distinguishing functional from ornamental aspects, and granting summary judgment when the record permits no reasonable finding of substantial similarity.
The separate opinions nevertheless expose a significant disagreement within the court about whether current doctrine gives judges too much control over visual and fact-intensive infringement questions. That debate may influence future rehearing petitions, jury-right arguments, and efforts to obtain Supreme Court review.