Range of Motion v Armaid, (Fed. Cir., August 11, 2026) 2023-2427

This episode concerns a 2026 order in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing in a design patent dispute between Range of Motion Products and Armaid Company. The majority opinion maintains that claim construction and the determination of functional versus ornamental features remain legal questions appropriately handled by judges. They argue that judicial oversight ensures consistency and allows for the efficient resolution of cases at summary judgment when designs are clearly distinct. Conversely, the dissent contends that these assessments are inherently factual and should be reserved for jury deliberation. Chief Judge Moore argues that the current legal framework has improperly shifted the focus toward minor differences rather than the overall visual similarity perceived by an ordinary observer. Ultimately, the court's decision reinforces the judiciary's primary role in defining the scope of design patent protection.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.