DCT

2:17-cv-01825

Maxill Inc v. Loops LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-01825, W.D. Wash., 12/05/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having their principal place of business in the district, being registered to do business in Washington, and deriving substantial revenue from commercializing products within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its institutional toothbrush products do not infringe Defendant's patent and/or that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following receipt of a cease and desist letter from the Defendant.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves flexible toothbrushes designed to be safe for use in institutional environments, such as prisons, by preventing them from being modified into weapons.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on July 20, 2017, Defendant Loops sent Plaintiff Maxill a cease and desist letter alleging infringement of the patent-in-suit. On the same day, Loops filed an infringement suit over the same patent against a third party in the District of Utah, later amending that complaint to add Maxill's Canadian parent company as a defendant. The complaint also notes that Loops has asserted a corresponding Canadian patent against the parent company in Canada.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-08-18 '285 Patent Priority Date
2013-05-28 '285 Patent Issue Date
2017-07-20 Loops sends Cease and Desist Letter to Maxill
2017-07-20 Loops sues Bob Barker Co. in D. Utah over '285 Patent
2017-09-07 Loops amends Utah complaint to add Maxill Canada
2017-09-20 Amended complaint served on Maxill Canada
2017-11-08 Maxill Canada files Motion to Dismiss in Utah case
2017-12-05 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,448,285 - "Toothbrush and Methods of Making and Using Same"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,448,285, "Toothbrush and Methods of Making and Using Same," issued May 28, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the danger of conventional toothbrushes in prison settings, as they can be "fashioned into a pointed shaft or rod" and used as a weapon. It notes that existing safety toothbrushes with very short handles are often "awkward to use" and may lead to "inadequate teeth cleaning." (’285 Patent, col. 1:24-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a toothbrush with an "elongated body" made of a flexible material. This flexibility is intended to "prevent or limit the possibility of using or converting the toothbrush... to a shank/stabbing weapon." (’285 Patent, col. 3:57-64). To ensure the bristles are held effectively, the toothbrush features a two-part construction where a more rigid head, which holds the bristles, is molded inside the more flexible body, as illustrated in the manufacturing method of Figure 13. (’285 Patent, col. 2:63-65, Fig. 13).
  • Technical Importance: The design attempts to balance the need for safety in institutional environments with the ergonomic and functional requirements of an effective toothbrush, which prior art safety designs allegedly failed to do. (’285 Patent, col. 1:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

The cease and desist letter referenced in the complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2-3, 6, 9, 11-12, and 15-16. (Compl. ¶14). The independent claims are 1 and 11.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • an elongated body being flexible throughout the elongated body and comprising a first material and having a head portion and a handle portion;
    • a head comprising a second material, wherein the head is disposed in and molded to the head portion of the elongated body;
    • a plurality of bristles extending from the head forming a bristle brush,
    • wherein the first material is less rigid than the second material.
  • Independent Claim 11 (as amended by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 8,448,285 C1):
    • an elongated body being flexible throughout the elongated body comprising a first material and having a head portion and a handle portion;
    • a head comprising a second material, wherein the head is disposed in and molded to the head portion of the elongated body;
    • a plurality of bristles extending from the head forming a bristle brush, the head further comprising two index pins;
    • wherein the first material substantially encases the second material at the head portion, wherein the first material is less rigid than the second material.
  • The complaint indicates that the patent holder reserves the right to assert various dependent claims. (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as "Maxill Ohio's Supermaxx™ Institutional line of toothbrush," also referred to as the "Supermaxx Product." (Compl. ¶10, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Supermaxx Product as an "oral healthcare product" that Maxill supplies and distributes. (Compl. ¶10). The cease and desist letter, as quoted in the complaint, characterizes the accused products as "flexible toothbrushes." (Compl. ¶14).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical construction, materials, or operation of the Supermaxx Product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement but does not include a claim chart or provide a technical description of the accused Supermaxx™ product. (Compl. ¶10, ¶37). The infringement theory from the patent holder is referenced via a cease and desist letter, which alleges the Supermaxx product infringes claims of the ’285 Patent, but the complaint does not elaborate on the factual basis for this allegation. (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim analysis of the infringement allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "flexible throughout the elongated body" (present in claims 1 and 11)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's stated safety purpose. The degree of flexibility required will be a critical issue for both infringement and validity, especially given the specification's disclosure that a user can "flex the elongated body into a substantially rigid position for teeth brushing purposes." (’285 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses a wide range of potential materials for the body, including elastomers and more rigid plastics like polypropylene, which may support an argument that "flexible" covers a wide spectrum of bendability. (’285 Patent, col. 2:38-50).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background's focus on preventing the toothbrush from being used as a "shank/stabbing weapon" could support a narrower construction where "flexible" requires that the body cannot maintain a rigid, piercing form. (’285 Patent, col. 1:24-29; col. 3:57-64).

  • The Term: "the first material is less rigid than the second material" (present in claims 1 and 11)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core two-material structure of the invention, where the flexible body (first material) is distinct from the bristle-bearing head (second material). The dispute may focus on how different the rigidity must be.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the first material be "less rigid," without specifying a degree. This may support a construction where any measurable difference in rigidity meets the limitation. The specification describes the head as being made of a "more rigid material" without further quantification. (’285 Patent, col. 3:40-42).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the rigidity difference must be functionally significant to achieve the patent's goals—i.e., the head must be rigid enough to "facilitate attachment of the bristle brush" while the body is flexible enough to prevent weaponization. (’285 Patent, col. 3:41-42).

  • The Term: "substantially encases" (present in claim 11)

    • Context and Importance: This term is a key differentiator for claim 11. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine the extent to which the flexible body must surround the rigid head to meet the claim limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" suggests the encasement need not be complete. Figures in the patent show the top surface of the head exposed for bristles, which supports an interpretation that less-than-total coverage is sufficient. (’285 Patent, Fig. 9).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the encasement to the purpose of "further prevent[ing] fashioning or using the head... as a weapon." (’285 Patent, col. 4:62-64). This could support a narrower construction requiring the encasement to be extensive enough to achieve this specific safety function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of non-infringement "directly or indirectly," but the complaint provides no factual allegations concerning inducement or contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶42).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint is a response to allegations of willfulness. It alleges that Loops' cease and desist letter asserted a "reasonable basis to assert both literal and willful infringement" and threatened "treble damages," thereby establishing that Maxill was on notice of the patent and the infringement allegations prior to the suit. (Compl. ¶15).
  • Patent Misuse: The complaint includes a count for patent misuse, alleging the ’285 Patent "was obtained and is being exploited and used in an improper manner." However, the complaint makes this a conclusory allegation and does not plead specific facts to support it. (Compl. ¶40).

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

  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope: how should the term "flexible throughout the elongated body" be construed, given that the patent's own description states the user can bend it into a "substantially rigid" state for use? The resolution of this tension is fundamental to the entire dispute.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural comparison: does the accused Supermaxx™ product—which is not technically described in the complaint—actually incorporate the two-material structure recited in the claims, specifically a more rigid head ("second material") "disposed in and molded to" a "less rigid" flexible body ("first material")?
  • A significant procedural question, raised by the complaint's own narrative, will be one of jurisdictional interplay: how will the parallel litigation in the District of Utah involving Maxill's parent company, and the pending motion to dismiss therein, affect the progress, scope, and potential preclusive effect on this declaratory judgment action in Washington?