Federal Circuit Tackles Conflicting Design Patent Tests and Online Enforcement in Easlick Appeal

The Federal Circuit currently faces two significant design patent disputes that examine the doctrinal application of the "plainly dissimilar" test from Egyptian Goddess from opposing perspectives. In Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Co., 166 F.4th 981 (Fed. Cir. 2026), the full court is considering an en banc petition arguing that the "plainly dissimilar" test has inverted the Supreme Court's ordinary observer standard by encouraging judges to focus on differences rather than overall similarity.

Concurrently, a panel comprising Judges Dyk, Prost, and Schall has under submission Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, Nos. 2024-1538, -1826 (Fed. Cir., argued March 9, 2026). This appeal arises from a preliminary injunction denial that hinges on the same "plainly dissimilar" test.

The Easlick patent at issue covers a TOTE HANGER, protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D695,526. In the district court, Judge William Stickman (W.D. Pa.) identified three ornamental differences between the patented design and an accused Amazon listing. He declared the designs plainly dissimilar and did not proceed to analyze the prior art.

Visual representations include Figures 1 and 8 of U.S. Design Patent No. D695,526, depicting the claimed handbag hanger hook and an environmental view showing the rod hook above and the offset purse hook below.

Beyond the substantive design patent dispute, Easlick presents a procedural narrative emblematic of modern online intellectual property enforcement. Easlick initiated its case as a "Schedule A" action, suing 67 online sellers in a single sealed complaint. It secured a same-day ex parte temporary restraining order that froze over $40,000 in AccEncyc's Amazon account, despite AccEncyc representing that its total accused sales were under $500.

Four intellectual property scholars—Sarah Fackrell, Eric Goldman, Elizabeth Rosenblatt, and Saurabh Vishnubhakat—represented by Stanford's IP Clinic, filed an amicus brief supporting affirmance. They urged the Federal Circuit to confront the procedural complexities and potential abuses inherent in mass-defendant internet enforcement schemes.

This dual substantive and procedural dimension makes Easlick a case to watch for its potential to influence both design patent infringement analysis and the mechanisms of online IP enforcement.

In a separate Federal Circuit decision, Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corp., No. 25-1222 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2026) (nonprecedential), the court addressed claim construction issues. During oral argument, Judge Chen posed an illustrative question comparing handing someone bread and cheese to giving them a cheese sandwich. The panel ultimately held that receiving a passcode and a token separately does not constitute "receiving the password," which requires the two components to be joined, under U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658.

Dynapass contended that the claims erroneously excluded an embodiment described in the specification where the passcode and token are provided separately. However, the court emphasized that claim language controls, even if it excludes alternative embodiments. The panel found that Claim 1 explicitly "requires generating a password from the passcode and token before receiving the password," and that the individual components alone are not the claimed "password."

Separately, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a fee waiver for its Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program, effective for petitions filed on or after June 10, 2026. This waiver eliminates the 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(h) petition fee previously required under the program launched last fall.

The pilot program offers free expedited examination for original, noncontinuing utility applications filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) before October 27, 2025, that contain no more than one independent claim and ten total claims. Applications not currently compliant may file a preliminary amendment with the petition to conform to claim limits. The program runs until October 27, 2026, or until approximately 200 pilot applications per Technology Center have been docketed. As of the announcement, all Technology Centers still have available slots.

In Hafeman v. Google LLC, No. 2024-1600 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2026) (precedential), the Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision not to terminate six inter partes reviews (IPRs) after petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation.

The procedural history is as follows: In July 2021, Carolyn Hafeman sued LG in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents covering a screen displaying owner return information at boot-up on lost or stolen computers. In July 2022, Google and Microsoft filed six IPR petitions—two against each patent—naming LG as a real party in interest. The petitions included no stipulation initially, but LG later provided a Sotera stipulation promising not to pursue in district court any grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPRs.

In January 2023, the PTAB instituted all six reviews, relying on the stipulation to reject discretionary denial based on duplication concerns. In February 2023, LG moved for summary judgment of invalidity in district court on the same priority-date theory raised in the petitions. In April 2023, the district court found LG's motion violated the stipulation and estopped LG from pressing the priority-date challenge.

Hafeman then requested the PTAB to terminate the IPRs based on the district court's breach finding, but the Board refused. In January 2024, the PTAB issued three final written decisions holding all claims obvious over prior art references Jenne and Cohen, without addressing the stipulation breach.

In June 2026, the Federal Circuit dismissed the stipulation-based challenge under § 314(d) and affirmed the unpatentability rulings, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's institution decision.