DCT
3:25-cv-01814
Loops LLC v. Maxill Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Loops, L.L.C. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Maxill Inc. (Canada) and John Dennie Shaw (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Kohn & Walker, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01814, S.D. Cal., 07/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are a foreign corporation and a foreign citizen not resident in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s flexible safety toothbrush infringes patents related to composite toothbrush designs with safety features for institutional environments.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for personal care products in correctional and mental health facilities, where items like toothbrushes must be designed to prevent use as weapons while remaining effective.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of "past litigations" in Canada between the parties "dating back more than a decade," which it uses to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-11-27 | Earliest Priority Date for '311 and '940 Patents |
| c. 2016-2017 | Defendants allegedly began selling Accused Product in Canada |
| 2019-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,334,940 Issued |
| 2021-05-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,013,311 Issued |
| 2025-07-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,013,311 - "Composite Toothbrush Having Safety Features and Methods of Making Same"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,013,311, "Composite Toothbrush Having Safety Features and Methods of Making Same," issued May 25, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for toothbrushes in institutional settings (e.g., prisons) that cannot be fashioned into a weapon, or "shank" ('311 Patent, col. 1:45-53). It also notes that while some flexible toothbrushes exist, they often suffer from poor bristle retention because the bristles are secured in a flexible material ('311 Patent, col. 2:9-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a composite toothbrush constructed from two different materials: a "rigid polymer material" and a "pliable flexible material" ('311 Patent, Abstract). The bristles are anchored in the rigid portion to ensure good retention, while the bulk of the toothbrush, including the handle, is made of the pliable material to prevent weaponization, creating a product that is both safe and durable ('311 Patent, col. 2:18-22, col. 4:62-65). The pliable material comprises a greater volume than the rigid material, ensuring the overall product is flexible ('311 Patent, col. 2:30-34).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a solution that balances the conflicting requirements of safety (flexibility) and functionality (effective bristle retention) for the institutional care market ('311 Patent, col. 1:31-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 (Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the essential elements of a toothbrush comprising:
- a rigid polymer material comprising a first volume;
- a pliable flexible material comprising a second volume, wherein the second volume is greater than the first volume;
- a plurality of bristles coupled to the rigid polymer material for providing cleansing to a user's teeth; and
- a thermoplastic bond at an interface between the rigid polymer material and the pliable flexible material, the toothbrush thereby being a composite toothbrush.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶24).
U.S. Patent No. 10,334,940 - "Composite Head Toothbrush Having Safety Features"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,334,940, "Composite Head Toothbrush Having Safety Features," issued July 2, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the '311 Patent, the '940 Patent identifies the problem of conventional toothbrushes being used as weapons in prisons and the poor bristle retention of purely flexible alternatives ('940 Patent, col. 1:36-44, col. 2:3-8).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a toothbrush with a composite head comprising a "rigid inner core" made from a first material and a "pliable flexible material" made from a second material that surrounds the core ('940 Patent, Abstract). The bristles are held by the rigid core, while the softer outer material provides safety. The design specifically contemplates that the rigid inner core is "molded to the pliable flexible material," creating a bond without glue, and may include "pin connectors" to help secure the two parts during manufacturing ('940 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:23-25, col. 4:56-61).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific manufacturing method and structure for creating a durable, safe, composite toothbrush suitable for high-security environments ('940 Patent, col. 1:30-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶34).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the essential elements of a toothbrush with a composite head comprising:
- a rigid polymer inner core having a plurality of bristle holes for retention and holding bristles, made from a 1st material;
- a pliable flexible material completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side in bottom plan view underside aspect, made from a 2nd material; and
- a bond at an interface between the two materials, wherein the rigid polymer inner core is molded to the pliable flexible material.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Supermaxx" toothbrush (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Supermaxx toothbrush as a "knockoff product" and a "competing flexible toothbrush" designed to be sold in the same correctional and institutional care markets as Plaintiff's Loops Flexbrush® (Compl. ¶2, ¶9, ¶20). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants market and sell the Accused Product in the U.S. through their own websites and third-party marketplaces like Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'311 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rigid polymer material comprising a first volume | The Accused Product is alleged to have a rigid polymer material. | ¶25 | col. 2:29-30 |
| a pliable flexible material comprising a second volume, wherein the second volume is greater than the first volume | The Accused Product is alleged to have a pliable flexible material whose volume is greater than the rigid polymer material's volume. | ¶25 | col. 2:30-32 |
| a plurality of bristles coupled to the rigid polymer material for providing cleansing to a user's teeth | The Accused Product is alleged to have bristles coupled to the rigid polymer material. | ¶25 | col. 2:18-22 |
| a thermoplastic bond at an interface between the rigid polymer material and the pliable flexible material... | The Accused Product is alleged to have a thermoplastic bond at the interface between the two materials. | ¶25 | col. 4:21-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: Claim 1 requires that the volume of the pliable material be "greater than" the volume of the rigid material. The complaint makes this conclusory allegation (Compl. ¶25), but a central evidentiary question will be whether this quantitative limitation is met by the Accused Product.
- Scope Question: The claim requires a "thermoplastic bond." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the method of joining the two materials in the Accused Product falls within the definition of this term as it is used and described in the patent.
'940 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rigid polymer inner core having a plurality of bristle holes for retention and holding a plurality of toothbrush bristles, the rigid polymer inner core made from a 1st material | The Accused Product is alleged to have a rigid polymer inner core with bristle holes, made from a first material. | ¶35 | col. 2:25-28 |
| a pliable flexible material completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side in bottom plan view underside aspect, the pliable flexible material being made from a 2nd material | The Accused Product is alleged to have a pliable flexible material that surrounds the rigid core in the specific manner described ("on the left and right side..."). | ¶35 | col. 2:28-32 |
| a bond at an interface... wherein further the rigid polymer inner core is molded to the pliable flexible material thereby forming the composite head having the bond | The Accused Product is alleged to have a bond formed by molding the rigid inner core to the pliable material. | ¶35 | col. 4:56-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: Claim 1 recites a highly specific geometric arrangement: "completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side in bottom plan view underside aspect." Infringement will depend on whether the physical structure of the Accused Product meets this precise limitation, which appears tied to Figure 5 of the patent.
- Technical Question: The claim requires that the rigid core "is molded to the pliable flexible material." This may be interpreted as a process-based limitation on the final product. A key question will be what manufacturing process Defendants use and whether it falls within the scope of this claim language, which the patent specification suggests is a process "devoid of glue" ('940 Patent, col. 4:23-25).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '311 Patent
- The Term: "thermoplastic bond" (from Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines how the rigid and pliable materials are joined. The case may turn on whether the Accused Product's method of adhesion qualifies as a "thermoplastic bond" versus another method, such as using an adhesive. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it implicitly requires a specific manufacturing process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning in the art.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "a thermoplastic bond is created in the manufacturing process wherein the inner 11 toothbrush head is molded to the outer toothbrush head 12" ('311 Patent, col. 4:21-24). This language could be used to argue that the term is limited to a bond formed via a two-shot or overmolding process.
For the '940 Patent
- The Term: "completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side in bottom plan view underside aspect" (from Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term provides a very specific geometric and relational limitation. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on comparing the physical form of the Accused Product to this detailed description. Practitioners may focus on whether "completely" requires 100% coverage and how the specific reference to a "bottom plan view" limits the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "completely surrounding" should be interpreted functionally to mean substantially encasing, rather than requiring a mathematically perfect and gapless seal on the specified sides.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is unusually specific, referencing not only sides ("left and a right") but also a particular viewing angle ("bottom plan view underside aspect"). This language directly corresponds to the description of Figure 5 in the specification ('940 Patent, col. 4:18-22), strongly suggesting the term should be narrowly construed in light of that specific embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Shaw actively induced infringement, asserting he "was otherwise the moving force behind, the design, production, manufacture, import, promotion, and/or sale of Accused Product" (Compl. ¶10).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. The primary factual basis is Defendants' alleged "prior knowledge" of the patents and Plaintiff's technology, purportedly gained from "past litigations between them in Canada dating back more than a decade" (Compl. ¶27, ¶31, ¶37, ¶41). The complaint further alleges the Accused Product is a "copy of the Loops Flexbrush®" (Compl. ¶3, ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural scope: Does the physical geometry of the "Supermaxx" toothbrush meet the highly specific limitations of the claims, such as the pliable material "completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side" ('940 Patent) and having a "volume... greater than the first volume" ('311 Patent)?
- A second central question will concern process-defined structure: Do the terms "thermoplastic bond" and "molded to" import manufacturing process limitations into the apparatus claims? If so, the court must determine whether the process used to create the Accused Product falls within the scope of those limitations, particularly in light of the patents' emphasis on a bond created without glue.
- Finally, a key issue for damages will be willfulness: Do the alleged "past litigations" in Canada provide sufficient evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the asserted U.S. patents and conduct so egregious as to warrant enhanced damages, or will Defendants be able to distinguish the prior disputes from the current infringement allegations?