PureWick v. Sage Products: Plaintiff wins $26.2M jury verdict on female external catheter patents
PureWick Corporation secured a full plaintiff judgment in the Delaware District Court against Sage Products' PrimaFit product, covering three external female catheter patents. A unanimous jury verdict delivered $26.2M in lost profits, with the court further awarding pre- and post-judgment interest and an ongoing 6.5% royalty on the '407 patent.
PureWick's catheter patents survive validity challenge and deliver $26M+ judgment
PureWick Corporation filed suit in the District of Delaware on August 12, 2019, asserting infringement of four patents covering its external female urinary catheter technology against Sage Products, LLC and its PrimaFit product. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and on April 1, 2022 the jury returned a unanimous verdict. The asserted patents — US10226376, US10390989, US10376407, and US8287508 — cover external female catheter device configurations and methods of use marketed under the PureWick FEC brand.
Final judgment was entered on October 27, 2023, amending an earlier April 7, 2022 judgment following post-trial motion practice. The court entered judgment for PureWick on direct, induced, and contributory infringement of the '376 and '989 patents, direct infringement of the '407 patent, and willful infringement of the '376 and '989 patents. Sage's invalidity defenses — including anticipation, obviousness, prior public use, and prior public sale — were all rejected. Damages totaled $26,215,545 in lost profits on the '376 and '989 patents, plus $1,799,193 as a reasonable royalty on the '407 patent, $1,144,734 in pre-judgment interest, and an ongoing royalty of 6.5% of net revenues on the '407 patent. Claims relating to the '508 patent were dismissed with prejudice as moot.
The case took over four years to reach final judgment, reflecting the complexity of the post-trial motion phase — the court's memorandum and order on post-trial motions was not issued until April 6, 2023, nearly a year after the jury verdict. The willfulness findings on two patents and the rejection of all invalidity defenses represent a strong outcome for PureWick. Sage confirmed cessation of all PrimaFit sales after November 30, 2021, which capped the lost-profits exposure on that product. Whether attorneys' fees will be awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and whether any appeal is pursued, remains outside the available record at this filing.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 1537 days
1,537 days — over four years from filing to final judgment, spanning jury trial and post-trial motions
US10226376, US10390989 & US10376407 — external female urinary catheter patents


Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of external female urinary catheter or urine collection devices should treat this patent family as a priority FTO target. The Delaware judgment confirms these claims are enforceable, valid, and commercially significant. Healthcare procurement professionals evaluating competing products — including absorbent-wick or non-invasive catheter alternatives — face direct infringement exposure if their products read on the asserted claims. The PrimaFit product was found to infringe; product teams should map their own designs against the specific claim elements of claims 1, 5, and 9 of the '376 patent and claims 1 and 6 of the '989 patent as a starting point.
Official order — verbatim text
The Final Judgment of October 27, 2023 is a comprehensive merits ruling amending and superseding the April 2022 judgment. It confirms jury findings of direct, induced, and contributory infringement, adds a court-level willfulness determination on two patents, and closes out all invalidity and equitable defences in PureWick's favour. The structured damages award — separating lost profits, reasonable royalty, pre-judgment interest, and an ongoing royalty — reflects post-trial motion practice that refined but did not disturb the underlying verdict.
Judgment on the merits: what the plaintiff win means for both parties
Final judgment after jury trial and post-trial motions
The court entered final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, amending the original April 2022 judgment after resolving post-trial motions. The judgment covers direct, induced, and contributory infringement, willfulness on two patents, and rejection of all invalidity counterclaims. Claims on the '508 patent were dismissed with prejudice as moot, narrowing the operative record to three patents.
Merits judgment — full plaintiff victoryPureWick obtains $26.2M lost profits plus royalties and willfulness findings
PureWick secured $26,215,545 in lost profits on the '376 and '989 patents, $1,799,193 in reasonable royalties on the '407 patent, $1,144,734 in pre-judgment interest, and an ongoing 6.5% royalty on future '407 patent sales. Willfulness findings on two patents open the door to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, subject to any further motion. All three asserted patents survived validity challenge.
Lost profits + ongoing royalty awardedSage's invalidity and equitable defences comprehensively rejected
Every invalidity theory advanced by Sage — anticipation, obviousness, prior public use, prior public sale — was rejected by the court. Equitable defences including estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, and unclean hands also failed. Sage confirmed cessation of PrimaFit sales after November 30, 2021, which limited ongoing damages exposure but did not reduce the lost-profits award for the infringement period. Attorneys' fees under § 285 remain unresolved in the available record.
All defences failed — damages confirmedStrong IP moat established for external female catheter technology
The judgment reinforces PureWick's patent portfolio as a meaningful enforcement barrier in the external female urinary catheter segment. Willfulness findings and the survival of three patents against broad validity challenge signal that competitors seeking to enter this product space face significant litigation risk. The 6.5% ongoing royalty rate and the lost-profits framework established here are commercially significant benchmarks for the sector.
Sector: medical device / continence careFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PureWick Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sage Products, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amanda K. Antons | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Russell | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Athena D. Dalton | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian P. Biddinger | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason C. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John W. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karen Elizabeth Keller | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew A. Traupman | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Raymond N. Nimrod | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven C. Cherny | Attorney | Counsel for PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing PureWick CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anne Shea Gaza | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bradley P. Loren | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryce R. Persichetti | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher M. Scharff | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deborah A. Laughton | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jenna Saunders | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert A. Surrette | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan J. Pianetto | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samantha G. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sandra A. Frantzen | Attorney | Counsel for Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sage Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the external female catheter IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from PureWick's enforcement of its external female catheter portfolio against Sage Products in Delaware.
PureWick's external catheter filing activity signals continued IP build-out
PureWick successfully asserted three patents filed between 2016 and 2017, all of which survived validity challenge. This suggests a deliberate, layered filing strategy around external female catheter technology. Monitoring PureWick's subsequent applications in this family — including continuations and divisionals — is essential for any R&D team working in continence care device design.
PureWick patent family watchNon-invasive female urine collection is an active and contested filing domain
The commercial success and enforcement activity around PureWick's FEC product suggests growing patent density in external female urinary collection devices. R&D teams developing absorbent-wick, vacuum-assisted, or anatomically shaped collection devices should conduct a landscape analysis to identify white space and avoid the claim perimeter established by the PureWick portfolio.
Filing density — continence careSage Products' IP position in continence care post-judgment
Sage Products confirmed cessation of PrimaFit sales after November 2021 and lost comprehensively on invalidity. Understanding Sage's own patent filings in the catheter and continence care space — and whether it has pursued alternative designs since withdrawal — provides intelligence on competitive repositioning in this product category.
Sage Products patent postureAdjacent innovation opportunities near the PureWick claim perimeter
With PureWick's core device and method claims now confirmed as valid and infringed, adjacent R&D opportunities may lie in collection system integration, sensor-enabled monitoring of fluid volumes, or antimicrobial materials for external catheters — areas not specifically addressed by the asserted claims. A targeted patent landscape search can identify whether these adjacencies are already populated or represent genuine white space.
Design-around white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in external female catheter & medical device IP
Explore comparable patent infringement cases involving medical device IP asserted in the Delaware District Court, particularly in continence care and non-invasive catheter technology.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable PrimaFit™-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedPureWick Corporation's broader IP enforcement history
PureWick Corporation's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the external female catheter IP landscape
A $26M+ verdict with willfulness findings confirms PureWick's patents as high-value enforcement assets in a fast-growing medical device category.
Willfulness findings raise the stakes for any competitor in this space
The court's willfulness findings on the '376 and '989 patents signal that Sage's conduct was assessed as more than inadvertent. Competitors in the external female catheter market should treat these patents as live enforcement risks requiring proactive FTO clearance, not background noise.
Three patents survived every invalidity theory Sage could bring
Anticipation, obviousness, prior public use, and prior public sale were all rejected. For R&D teams designing around PureWick's portfolio, the breadth of the validity challenge — and its failure — suggests these claims are robustly drafted and will be difficult to engineer around without a clear non-obviousness argument.
The 6.5% ongoing royalty rate is a commercial benchmark for licensing negotiations
Courts rarely award ongoing royalties without a principled rate basis. The 6.5% net revenue royalty on the '407 patent, unchallenged in the public record, may anchor future licensing discussions across the continence care device sector where PureWick holds IP.
Attorneys' fees motion under § 285 could further increase the financial exposure
The court deferred fees motions until after the appellate mandate. Combined with the willfulness findings, this creates a scenario where Sage's total liability could materially exceed the $29M+ judgment if an exceptional-case finding is made. Monitoring the appellate docket is essential for any party tracking this dispute.
PureWick v Sage — key questions answered
Final judgment was entered in favour of PureWick Corporation on October 27, 2023. The court confirmed the jury's April 2022 verdict of direct, induced, and contributory infringement of the '376 and '989 patents, direct infringement of the '407 patent, and willful infringement of the '376 and '989 patents. Total damages were $26,215,545 in lost profits, $1,799,193 in reasonable royalties, and $1,144,734 in pre-judgment interest, plus an ongoing 6.5% royalty on the '407 patent.
PureWick asserted four patents: US10226376 (app. US15/611587), US10390989 (app. US15/260103), US10376407 (app. US15/238427), and US8287508 (app. US12/840475). The claims relating to the '508 patent were dismissed with prejudice as moot. Judgment on infringement and validity was entered on the '376, '989, and '407 patents.
Sage Products' PrimaFit external female urinary catheter product was the accused product. Sage confirmed cessation of all PrimaFit sales after November 30, 2021, which capped the lost-profits damages on that product. A separate ongoing royalty of 6.5% was awarded for any sales of the PrimoFit product after December 31, 2021.
No. All invalidity defences advanced by Sage were rejected. The court entered judgment for PureWick against Sage on anticipation of all asserted claims, obviousness of all asserted claims, and prior public use and prior public sale defences. Equitable defences including estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, and unclean hands also failed.
The final judgment does not award attorneys' fees. The court's order deferred any motion for costs and attorneys' fees — including under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — until within fourteen days after the appeal deadline expires or after the appellate mandate issues. Whether fees will be sought or awarded is not resolved in the available record.
Track external catheter IP enforcement and FTO risks in real time
PureWick's $26M+ judgment confirms these external catheter patents as active enforcement assets. Use PatSnap Eureka to monitor new filings in this family, run FTO clearance against US10226376 and related patents, and track any appellate developments.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.