Federal Circuit Split over “Plainly Dissimilar” Design, Affirms Summary Judgement of Non-infringement

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. RoM timely 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 Goddess includes examining whether the claimed and accused designs are “sufficiently distinct” and “plainly dissimilar.” Applying this test, the majority affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement. 

Chief Judge Moore dissented, noting how the Court’s decision in Egyptian Goddess unwittingly “changed the frame of reference” of the ordinary observer test from whether two designs are substantially similar to 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.