Lojer Sues TRL Tables in Marshall Over a Patient Table Patent.

The parties and the court

The case is Lojer Oy v. The Rehab Lab Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00940 (E.D. Tex.). Lojer is a Finnish company with its principal place of business in Sastamala, Finland. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that The Rehab Lab Inc., doing business as TRL Tables, is an Ontario corporation with an office in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The complaint says the companies compete for the same customers and distributors in the United States market for hi-lo treatment and mobilization tables.

Subject matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). Personal jurisdiction is pleaded under the Texas long-arm statute and, in the alternative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) and 1400(b). The complaint says section 1400(b) does not restrict venue for an alien defendant, and that a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district under section 1391(c)(3). It says TRL may be served under Rule 4(f)(1) or the Hague Convention.

What the patent covers

U.S. Patent 9,642,761, titled Patient table, issued May 9, 2017, from Application No. 14/937,323, filed November 10, 2015. That application claims priority to Finnish application no. 20145982, filed November 10, 2014. Google Patents lists the patent as active, with an anticipated expiration of November 10, 2035. The complaint alleges Lojer is the assignee, with the right to sue and to collect damages, and that Lojer's Manuthera 242 Mobilisation Table is a commercial embodiment of at least claim 1. It says Lojer marks that table with the patent and has complied with 35 U.S.C. 287.

Claim 1 covers a patient table with a table top, a lower frame, and an intermediate frame arranged between them. The intermediate frame is pivotally connected to the lower frame by a lower joint so as to turn in relation to the lower frame, and to the table top by an upper joint so as to turn in relation to the table top. A lower actuator is pivotally connected at its lower end to the lower frame and at its upper end to the table top or the intermediate frame. An upper actuator is pivotally connected at its lower end to the lower frame or the intermediate frame and at its upper end to the table top. The lower joint of the lower actuator is at a distance from the lower joint of the intermediate frame, and the upper joint of the upper actuator is at a distance from the upper joint of the intermediate frame. The lower joints of the intermediate frame, the lower actuator, and the upper actuator are at a horizontal distance from a first end of the lower frame that is less than half the length of the lower frame. Each upper joint is further from that first end, in a horizontal direction, than the corresponding lower joint.

Claims 2 through 8 depend from claim 1, directly or through an intermediate claim. Claim 2 requires the distance between the lower joint of the lower actuator and the lower joint of the intermediate frame to be smaller than the length of the intermediate frame. Claim 3 places the lower joints of the intermediate frame and both actuators at a horizontal distance from the first end that is less than one third of the length of the lower frame. Claim 4 requires the intermediate frame to be more than half as long as the lower frame. Claim 5 arranges the upper joint of the lower actuator to the table top and at a distance from the upper joint of the intermediate frame. Claim 6 requires actuators that produce force in one direction. Claim 7 requires pushing actuators. Claim 8 requires the patient table and both actuators to be under pressure within the entire operating range of the patient table.

What the complaint alleges

Count I alleges infringement of claims 1 through 8, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the accused tables, and by inducing others to do the same. The accused products are at least TRL's Chiro Supreme 3.0 Hi-Lo Flexion Distraction Table, including models with and without what the complaint calls red light therapy. The complaint says TRL is a direct infringer, an inducer, and a contributor. It pleads inducement of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), including by videos that show how to use the table. A claim chart is attached as Exhibit 2.

The complaint alleges Lojer told TRL of the patent by email on January 20, 2026, with a claim chart for at least claim 1, and that the letter said the Chiro Supreme 3.0 is similar to the Manuthera 242 "to such extent that it seems remarkable unless conscious copying has taken place." It alleges a reminder on February 6, 2026, and a paper copy received on February 12, 2026, and that TRL has not identified a non-infringement or invalidity position. It alleges, on information and belief, that TRL copied the Manuthera 242, which Lojer launched in 2015 and has sold in the United States since at least 2017, and that TRL was not an incorporated entity until 2022. It quotes TRL social-media text: "If you like the Manuthera 242, you'll understand this table immediately. ... Same treatment philosophy. Same clinical intent. Built for chiropractors." The complaint alleges the infringement is willful and asks for enhanced damages of up to three times the award under 35 U.S.C. 284, plus lost profits and at least a reasonable royalty.

Relief requested

The complaint says Lojer is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. 283. The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement of claim 1 and the other asserted claims, a finding of willfulness, a permanent injunction, an accounting, enhanced damages under section 284, attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, a supplemental award or an ongoing royalty if an injunction is not entered, interest, and costs under section 284 and 28 U.S.C. 1920. Lojer demands a jury. Counsel are Trey Yarbrough of Yarbrough Wilcox, PLLC, and, with pro hac vice forthcoming, Jonathan A. Roberts and Joseph A. Rhoa of Nixon & Vanderhye, PC.

What it means

The complaint sets up a competitor case on one apparatus patent. The asserted claims all run through claim 1's arrangement of the intermediate frame and the two actuators. The notice allegations start with the January 20, 2026 letter, and the prayer asks for an injunction and for enhanced damages. The complaint also says that in January 2017 Lojer was awarded the Fennia Prize, recognizing commendable use and protection of intellectual property rights in the Manuthera 242 treatment table.

What to watch next

Watch for service on TRL, its answer or a Rule 12 motion, and any motion for a preliminary injunction. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.