Loops LLC v. Maxill Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Loops, L.L.C. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Maxill Inc., et al. (Canada; Ohio; Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDonald Hopkins
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-02346, N.D. Ohio, 02/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants Maxill Ohio and Maxill Realty maintain a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Supermaxx" toothbrush infringes two patents related to flexible, composite-material safety toothbrushes designed for use in institutional environments.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for toothbrushes in secure facilities (e.g., correctional, mental health) that cannot be fashioned into weapons, balancing the requirement for flexibility with the need for a rigid structure to effectively anchor bristles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of prior litigation between the parties in Canada spanning over a decade. It also details recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by several Defendant entities, which the Plaintiff characterizes as a sham designed to delay creditors, and which were followed by a U.S. Trustee motion to dismiss or convert the cases to Chapter 7.

Case Timeline

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the danger of conventional toothbrushes in prisons and mental health facilities, as they can be sharpened into weapons, or "shanks." It notes that prior attempts at safety toothbrushes, such as those with very short handles, were awkward and ineffective, while flexible toothbrushes suffered from poor bristle retention. ’311 Patent, col. 1:41-61 ’311 Patent, col. 2:9-15
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a composite toothbrush made from two primary materials: a rigid polymer and a pliable, flexible polymer. The rigid material is used to form an inner structure that securely holds the bristles, while the softer, pliable material surrounds it and forms the handle, making the brush safe. A key aspect of the solution is that the volume of the pliable, flexible material is greater than the volume of the rigid material, ensuring the overall device is not easily weaponized. ’311 Patent, abstract ’311 Patent, col. 2:27-34
• Technical Importance: This composite approach aims to resolve the technical trade-off between safety (flexibility) and function (effective bristle anchoring) in oral care products for secure environments. ’311 Patent, col. 2:15-20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-5 Compl. ¶61
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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; and
  • a thermoplastic bond at an interface between the rigid polymer material and the pliable flexible material.
• Independent Claim 5:
  • A composite toothbrush comprising:
  • a rigid polymer toothbrush head inner core with bristle holes;
  • a pliable flexible material partially surrounding the rigid inner core on its left and right sides; and
  • a flexible handle made from the pliable material that can bend into an "L" or "C" shape, wherein the pliable material has a greater volume than the rigid inner core material.
• The complaint also alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-4 Compl. ¶¶61, 63

U.S. Patent No. 10,334,940 - "Composite Head Toothbrush Having Safety Features"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problem as its related ’311 Patent: the need for a toothbrush suitable for secure institutions that cannot be converted into a weapon. It specifically highlights poor bristle retention as a key deficiency in toothbrushes made entirely of flexible material. ’940 Patent, col. 1:36-40 ’940 Patent, col. 2:3-8
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a toothbrush with a composite head where a rigid inner core, designed to hold bristles, is surrounded by a softer, pliable material. The two materials are joined when the rigid core is "molded to the pliable flexible material," creating a bond at their interface without the need for adhesives. This construction provides a secure anchor for the bristles within a soft, safe head structure. ’940 Patent, abstract ’940 Patent, col. 4:21-25
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a manufacturing method and structure that improves bristle retention in a safety toothbrush, a critical performance characteristic for any toothbrush. ’940 Patent, col. 2:3-8

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-3 Compl. ¶72
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A toothbrush with a composite head comprising:
  • a rigid polymer inner core with bristle holes;
  • a pliable flexible material completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side in a bottom plan view; and
  • a bond at the interface where the rigid inner core is molded to the pliable material.
• The complaint also alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-3 Compl. ¶¶72, 74

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Supermaxx" toothbrush Compl. ¶3

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Supermaxx is a "competing flexible toothbrush" sold for use in correctional and institutional care markets, in direct competition with Plaintiff's "Loops Flexbrush®" product Compl. ¶¶3-4 Compl. ¶30 The complaint describes the accused product as being constructed with a rigid polymer inner core for holding bristles, which is partially or completely surrounded by a pliable, flexible material that also forms a flexible handle Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶73 It is allegedly marketed and sold throughout the United States, including via online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay Compl. ¶19

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’311 Patent Infringement Allegations

’940 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the interpretation of comparative and absolute limitations. For the ’311 Patent, a question is how "volume" is measured to determine if the pliable material's volume is "greater than" the rigid material's volume. For the ’940 Patent, the analysis will question whether the accused product's pliable material "completely surrounding" the rigid core meets the claim language, especially given the complaint's parenthetical qualification of this element Compl. ¶73
• Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the manufacturing process of the Accused Product creates a "thermoplastic bond" as required by the ’311 Patent or results from a process where one material is "molded to" the other as claimed in the ’940 Patent. The complaint alleges both concepts are met Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶73

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wherein the second volume is greater than the first volume" ’311 Patent, claim 1

  • Context and Importance: This quantitative limitation is central to the safety feature of the invention, as it ensures the toothbrush is predominantly flexible and not easily weaponized. The method of calculating the respective "volumes" of the rigid and pliable materials will be a critical point of contention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "the pliable flexible material occupies more of the toothbrush 10 than any hard portion(s) having the rigid polymer material," which suggests a comparison of the total material used in the entire product, including the handle ’311 Patent, col. 7:65-67
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be interpreted in the context of the toothbrush head alone, where the volumetric ratio could be different, by pointing to embodiments where the primary inventive concept is the composite head structure.

• The Term: "completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side" ’940 Patent, claim 1

  • Context and Importance: The word "completely" sets a high bar for infringement. Any exposure of the rigid inner core on the specified surfaces of the accused product could form the basis of a non-infringement defense. The plaintiff's own pleading qualifies this limitation, suggesting it may be a known area of dispute Compl. ¶73
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Favoring Plaintiff): The patent's summary of the invention uses the phrase "substantially or entirely surrounding the rigid inner core," which could be used to argue that "completely" in the claim should not be read as requiring 100% absolute coverage without exception ’940 Patent, col. 2:28-29
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Favoring Defendant): The plain language of the claim uses the unambiguous term "completely." A defendant will likely argue that this term should be given its ordinary and high-threshold meaning, and that the specification's use of "substantially" elsewhere highlights a deliberate choice to use the stricter term in the claim itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant John Dennie Shaw induced infringement by using his control over the Maxill corporate entities to "actively encourage," direct, and influence them to manufacture, import, and sell the Accused Product in the U.S. Compl. ¶69 Compl. ¶80
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The complaint bases this on Defendants' alleged "prior knowledge" of the patents and technology, arising from "past litigations between them in Canada dating back more than a decade" Compl. ¶64 Compl. ¶68 Compl. ¶75 Compl. ¶79 The complaint further alleges the Accused Product is a "copy" of Plaintiff's commercial product Compl. ¶68 Compl. ¶79

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the quantitative limitation requiring the pliable material's volume to be "greater than" the rigid material's volume (’311 Patent) and the spatial limitation requiring the pliable material to be "completely surrounding" the rigid core (’940 Patent) be met by the accused product's design? The case may turn on whether these terms are interpreted broadly in light of the specification or strictly according to their plain meaning.
• A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: what will a physical and structural analysis of the "Supermaxx" toothbrush reveal about its material composition, volumetric ratios, and method of manufacture? The plaintiff's ability to demonstrate through technical evidence that the accused product's construction maps onto the specific limitations of each asserted claim will be critical.
• Finally, a key question for damages and willfulness will be the impact of prior dealings: how will the alleged "decade" of prior litigation in Canada between the parties affect the analysis of whether Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and acted with willful or reckless disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights?