The Federal Circuit's August 11, 2026 order in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc. did not change design patent law. But it reinforced an important practical lesson for companies that design, manufacture, or sell physical products: features that make a product work can also affect how much design patent protection the product receives.
The case involved competing handheld massage devices. Range of Motion owned a design patent covering its Rolflex product and accused Armaid's Armaid2 product of infringement. The courts concluded that several important features of the patented design were substantially influenced by function and that the accused product was sufficiently different in overall appearance to avoid infringement.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that result earlier this year. Its August order declined to rehear the case en banc, leaving that decision in place.
For a more detailed discussion of the February decision and the underlying design patent doctrine, see Range of Motion Prods. v. Armaid: Narrow Design Patent Scope and the Growing Role of "Plainly Dissimilar".
Why This Matters to Product Companies
Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not the useful function of a product.
That distinction becomes complicated because many product features do both. A curved handle may create a distinctive appearance while also improving ergonomics. A hinge, roller, housing, or support structure may contribute visually to a product while performing an important mechanical function.
In Range of Motion, the courts considered evidence showing that some of the patented product's visible features served functional purposes. That narrowed the ornamental aspects on which the patent owner could rely when arguing infringement.
For businesses, the lesson is straightforward: the documents created while developing and marketing a product can later influence the scope of a design patent.
Utility patents describing why a particular shape improves performance can become relevant. So can inventor statements and advertising that emphasizes the functional advantages of visible product features.
Charles Gideon Korrell therefore recommends that companies think about design patent protection as part of the broader product-development process, rather than treating it as paperwork completed after the design is finished.
Three Practical Steps
First, document genuine design choices.
If several shapes, configurations, or arrangements could perform the same function, keeping records of the alternatives considered may help demonstrate that the final appearance reflects ornamental choice rather than engineering necessity.
Second, coordinate design patents, utility patents, and marketing materials.
A utility patent may appropriately explain why a product feature performs better than alternatives. Marketing may properly make the same point. But companies should recognize that those statements may later be cited as evidence that the feature is functional.
That does not mean companies should avoid describing product advantages. It means patent, engineering, and marketing teams should understand that their statements do not exist in separate legal silos.
Third, evaluate overall appearance before accusing a competitor of infringement.
The Federal Circuit continues to permit courts to resolve cases at summary judgment when the patented and accused designs are "plainly dissimilar." Minor shared features will not necessarily establish infringement if the products create different overall visual impressions.
For patent owners, that means infringement analysis should begin with the complete designs, not merely a checklist of similar components. For accused infringers, substantial differences in overall appearance may provide an important early defense.
The Broader Lesson
The disagreement among Federal Circuit judges in Range of Motion concerns how much of this analysis should be performed by judges and how much should be left to juries. That debate may continue.
For businesses, however, the immediate rule is unchanged.
Design patents remain useful tools for protecting the appearance of commercially important products. But their practical strength depends partly on whether the protected appearance reflects genuine ornamental design choices rather than features dictated primarily by function.
Charles Gideon Korrell views Range of Motion as another reason for companies to coordinate industrial design, engineering, patent strategy, and marketing earlier in the product-development process. Decisions made long before litigation can ultimately determine how broadly a court views the resulting design patent.
About the Author
Charles Gideon Korrell is a California attorney, registered U.S. patent attorney, and Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US). He writes the Technology & Information Law Blog, analyzing developments in patent, technology, intellectual property, and information law.
Discussion