DCT
4:25-cv-02346
Loops LLC v. Maxill Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Loops, LLC. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Maxill Inc., et al. (Canada, Ohio, Unknown)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDonald Hopkins; Lewis Kohn & Walker, LLP
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-02346, N.D. Ohio, 10/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio because Defendants Maxill Ohio and Maxill Realty committed acts of infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business in the district. For foreign defendants, venue is alleged based on their status as non-U.S. residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Supermaxx" flexible toothbrush infringes patents related to composite safety toothbrushes designed for institutional use.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety toothbrushes with flexible handles and composite heads, designed to prevent their use as weapons in environments like correctional facilities and to be safer for patient care.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of "past litigations between them in Canada dating back more than a decade," which is presented as the basis for Defendants' pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's technology and patents, supporting the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-11-27 | Earliest Priority Date for ’311 and ’940 Patents |
| 2016-01-01 | Accused Product promotion and sale began in Canada (approx.) |
| 2019-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,334,940 Issues |
| 2021-05-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,013,311 Issues |
| 2025-10-30 | 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
Issued May 25, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the risk of conventional toothbrushes being modified into weapons ("shanks") in correctional and psychiatric facilities, and the inadequacy of prior safety designs that were often awkward to use or had poor bristle retention due to being made of flexible materials ('311 Patent, col. 1:41-54, col. 2:8-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a composite toothbrush constructed from two different materials: a rigid polymer for the core of the brush head to securely hold the bristles, and a larger volume of a soft, "pliable flexible material" that surrounds the core and forms the handle. This dual-material design aims to provide both durability for cleaning and flexibility for safety ('311 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-34). The handle is designed to be flexible enough to bend significantly, preventing it from being used as a rigid weapon ('311 Patent, col. 8:15-24).
- Technical Importance: This approach addresses the conflicting engineering requirements of a safety toothbrush: the need for a rigid structure to anchor bristles effectively while simultaneously creating an overall device that is too flexible to be dangerous (Compl. ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 essential elements include:
- 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 and pliable materials.
- Independent Claim 5 essential elements include:
- a rigid polymer toothbrush head inner core with bristle holes;
- a pliable flexible material partially surrounding the inner core; and
- a flexible handle made from the pliable material that can be bent into an "L" or "C" shape.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 10,334,940 - Composite Head Toothbrush Having Safety Features
Issued July 2, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’311 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a safety toothbrush that cannot be fashioned into a weapon but still provides effective cleaning and good bristle retention ('940 Patent, col. 1:36-48). It specifically notes that bristle retention is "very poor when configured to flexible material" ('940 Patent, col. 2:5-7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a composite toothbrush head made by molding a "pliable flexible material" around a "rigid inner core." The rigid core holds the bristles, while the soft outer material provides the safety characteristics. The design incorporates "pin connectors" extending from the rigid core into the pliable material to strengthen the bond and assist in the manufacturing process ('940 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-47).
- Technical Importance: This patent focuses on the structural integrity of the composite head, using features like pin connectors to ensure the soft and hard components remain securely bonded together without adhesives ('940 Patent, col. 4:23-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- Independent Claim 1 essential elements include:
- 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 flexible material.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶44-46).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Supermaxx" toothbrush (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Supermaxx toothbrush is a flexible toothbrush designed and marketed for use in correctional and institutional care settings (Compl. ¶3, ¶29). It is positioned as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's Loops Flexbrush® product and is described as a "knockoff product" and a "copy" that exploits the key safety features of the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶3, ¶4, ¶41, ¶51). The product is allegedly manufactured in Canada and imported into the United States for sale through various channels, including websites and online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶4, ¶7, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’311 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rigid polymer toothbrush head inner core having a plurality of bristle holes for retention and holding a plurality of toothbrush bristles... | The Accused Product has a rigid polymer toothbrush head inner core with bristle holes holding bristles. | ¶35 | col. 6:36-40 |
| a pliable flexible material partially surrounding the rigid polymer toothbrush head inner core on a left and a right side... | The Accused Product has a pliable flexible material that partially surrounds the rigid inner core on the left and right sides. | ¶35 | col. 6:41-45 |
| a flexible handle at least partially made from the 2nd material wherein the flexible handle is able to be bent into an "L" or a "C" shape... | The Accused Product has a flexible handle made from the pliable material that can bend into an "L" or "C" shape. | ¶35 | col. 6:46-49 |
| wherein the pliable flexible material comprises a greater volume than the rigid polymer toothbrush head inner core material. | The Accused Product's pliable flexible material comprises a greater volume than its rigid polymer inner core material. | ¶35 | col. 6:50-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "partially surrounding." The parties may dispute how much of the inner core must be covered to meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires that the pliable material's volume be "greater than" the rigid core's volume. This quantitative limitation raises an evidentiary question of how these volumes are measured in the Accused Product and whether it meets the threshold. Further, the functional limitation that the handle is "able to be bent into an 'L' or a 'C' shape" may be contested based on the degree of flexibility required.
’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 Accused Product has a composite head with a rigid polymer inner core containing bristle holes. | ¶45 | col. 5:17-20 |
| a pliable flexible material completely surrounding the rigid inner core on a left and a right side in bottom plan view underside aspect... | The Accused Product features a pliable flexible material that completely surrounds the rigid inner core on its left and right sides from an underside view. | ¶45 | col. 5:20-24 |
| a bond at an interface between the rigid inner core and the pliable flexible material...wherein further the rigid polymer inner core is molded to the pliable flexible material... | The Accused Product has a bond at the interface where the rigid inner core is molded to the pliable material. | ¶45 | col. 5:25-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "completely surrounding" is a potential point of dispute. A defendant may argue that areas where bristles emerge or other features exist mean the core is not "completely" surrounded, while the plaintiff may argue the term applies as viewed from the specific perspective ("bottom plan view underside aspect") recited in the claim.
- Technical Questions: The nature of the "bond" and the process limitation "is molded to" will likely be examined. The dispute may focus on whether the Accused Product is manufactured in a way that creates the specific type of thermoplastic bond described in the patent, which is "devoid of glue" ('940 Patent, col. 4:23-25).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’311 Patent:
- The Term: "wherein the second volume is greater than the first volume" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This quantitative limitation is central to defining the invention's safety characteristic. Infringement hinges on precise measurement of the two materials in the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be an objective, measurable standard that distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art that might use smaller amounts of soft material for grip alone.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that the pliable material makes the toothbrush "soft and pliable" for safety in "prison environments or patient care" ('311 Patent, col. 4:6-9). This purpose could support an interpretation where "volume" refers to the overall bulk that contributes to the product's flexibility and safety, not just a strict geometric calculation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself is a precise mathematical comparison ("greater than"). A defendant could argue this requires a strict, literal calculation of the geometric volume of the two separate components before they are assembled or molded together, potentially excluding any intermingling at the bond interface.
For the ’940 Patent:
- The Term: "completely surrounding" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the scope of the claim, as it defines the physical relationship between the rigid core and the pliable material. The case may turn on whether the accused product's structure, which must allow bristles to protrude from the rigid core, can be considered to have a core that is "completely" surrounded.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim qualifies the term with "on a left and a right side in bottom plan view underside aspect" ('940 Patent, col. 5:21-23). Plaintiff may argue this phrase limits the "completely surrounding" requirement to specific surfaces and views, not every possible surface of the core.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "completely" implies full encapsulation. The patent also describes the inner core as being "substantially encased by the pliable flexible material with the exception of the pin connectors and the side having the plurality of bristles" ('940 Patent, col. 2:42-47). This language from the summary of the invention suggests that the bristle side is an explicit exception, which could be used to argue that a claim lacking this explicit exception requires total encapsulation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Shaw "knowingly, willfully, deliberately and intentionally induced, aided, abetted, and participated in the infringing activities" of the corporate defendants (Compl. ¶14). However, it does not plead specific facts explaining how inducement occurred, such as through the creation of instructions or advertisements that encourage infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "prior knowledge" of the patents and technology arising from "past litigations between them in Canada dating back more than a decade" (Compl. ¶37, ¶41, ¶47). The complaint further alleges the Accused Product is a "copy of the Loops Flexbrush®" (Compl. ¶41, ¶51). These allegations of long-standing familiarity and direct copying form the primary basis for the claim of willful, intentional, and reckless conduct. The complaint provides a screenshot from a stock photography website, allegedly showing the source of a LinkedIn profile picture used by an individual connected to a defendant entity, which Plaintiff offers as evidence to support parallel allegations of fraudulent business conduct (Compl. ¶59, p. 20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe terms like "completely surrounding" in the ’940 patent versus "partially surrounding" in the ’311 patent? The infringement analysis for each patent may diverge significantly based on the level of encapsulation these terms are found to require.
- A second issue will be one of quantitative proof: Can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that the Accused Product meets the ’311 patent's requirement that the volume of the "pliable flexible material" is "greater than" the volume of the "rigid polymer material"? This will likely involve competing expert analyses and methodologies.
- A final key question will be the impact of the alleged litigation history: The assertion of "past litigations...dating back more than a decade" will be central to the willfulness claim. The case will likely examine the nature of that prior history to determine what Defendants knew about Plaintiff’s technology and patent rights, and when they knew it.