RANGE OF MOTION PRODUCTS, LLC v. ARMAID COMPANY INC.
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in a design patent dispute between two makers of body massage devices. Range of Motion Products, owner of U.S. Design Patent No. D802,155 covering its “Rolflex” massager, claimed that Armaid Company’s “Armaid2” product infringed its patented design. Both products feature curved, clamshell-style arms with rollers attached to a hinge mechanism—but the court found that when functional elements are factored out, what remains is “plainly dissimilar.”
The case centered on how courts should handle design patents that include functional features. The D’155 patent claims a body massaging apparatus with two curved arms connected by a hinge, each arm containing cylindrical rollers. The patent holder argued that everything depicted in solid lines in the patent drawings should be treated as ornamental. The court rejected this approach, explaining that accepting such demarcations at face value would make the established practice of distinguishing between functional and ornamental features meaningless. Instead, courts must independently evaluate functionality using factors like whether alternative designs exist, whether utility patents cover similar features, and whether marketing materials tout functional benefits.
Looking at the extrinsic evidence, the court found the “clamshell” shape of the arms served functional purposes—Armaid’s owner had previously obtained utility patent protection for a limb massager with arms “shaped and dimensioned to adjustably clamp a limb,” and the Rolflex’s marketing materials emphasized that its “clam-shaped roller arms provide significant leverage.” However, the court clarified that even functional elements aren’t entirely ignored—their ornamental aspects still count toward the overall design comparison.
On infringement, the court compared the overall ornamental appearance of both devices. While acknowledging the products share a “broad design concept,” the court identified key differences that would stand out to an ordinary observer familiar with prior art: the Armaid2’s prominent rectangular hinge apparatus versus the D’155 patent’s fixed arm as the focal point; the Armaid2’s segmented appearance with raised interior partitions; larger size-selection slots; and blunter, less rounded curves. These differences gave the Armaid2 a “stylized impression” compared to the D’155 patent’s “robust and workmanlike” appearance.
Chief Judge Moore dissented sharply, arguing that no reasonable person looking at the two devices could conclude they aren’t substantially similar. She criticized the court’s “plainly dissimilar” test as an improper departure from the Supreme Court’s original “substantially similar” standard from the 1871 Gorham case. According to the dissent, reframing the question from “are these designs substantially similar?” to “are these designs plainly dissimilar?” shifts the focus from similarities to differences—much like a children’s “spot the differences” puzzle trains the brain to notice small details rather than overall appearance. The dissent warned this trend is systematically removing design patent infringement questions from juries, where they belong.