Sanastar v. Fresh Products: Anti-Splash Device Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Sanastar, Inc. (d/b/a WizKid Products) sued Fresh Products LLC in the Ohio Northern District Court asserting two patents covering urinal anti-splash technology — US10294649B2 and US10036154B2 — against Fresh Products' Tsunami device and WizKid Splash Hog. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 458 days, each bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
WizKid Products takes Fresh Products to court over urinal splash tech
On 3 March 2025, Sanastar, Inc. — operating under the brand WizKid Products — filed a patent infringement action against Fresh Products LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Jack Zouhary. The suit asserted two patents, US10294649B2 and US10036154B2, both directed to urinal anti-splash device technology. The accused products were Fresh Products' Tsunami anti-splash device and WizKid's own Splash Hog, placing competing commercial products at the center of the dispute.
The case terminated on 4 June 2026 via a stipulated voluntary dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c). The recorded Basis of Termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order reflects that both parties — Sanastar and Fresh Products — stipulated to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees, including attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case ran for 458 days before reaching this resolution, a duration that suggests substantive litigation activity before the parties reached their agreement. What drove the ultimate resolution — whether commercial considerations, claim strength assessments, or other factors — is not disclosed in the publicly available record. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal forecloses any refiling of the same claims by Sanastar against Fresh Products on these patents.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 458 days
458 days from filing to dismissal in Ohio N.D.
US10294649B2 & US10036154B2 — urinal anti-splash device technology
Any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of urinal anti-splash devices — inserts, mats, screens, or deflector systems — should treat US10294649B2 and US10036154B2 as live risks. Both patents remain valid and enforceable following this dismissal. Sanastar has demonstrated willingness to assert these patents in federal court against a direct competitor, and the with-prejudice bar applies only to Fresh Products, leaving the full market exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal order invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c), covering both claims and counterclaims. The with-prejudice designation operates as a final adjudication on the merits, precluding Sanastar from reasserting infringement of US10294649B2 or US10036154B2 against Fresh Products. No damages, injunction, or finding of validity or invalidity was entered — the merits were never adjudicated by the court.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss all claims and counterclaims. The with-prejudice designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — Sanastar cannot refile the same infringement claims against Fresh Products on US10294649B2 or US10036154B2. The specific terms behind the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Binding, final dispositionSanastar's WizKid patents survive — but claims are extinguished
Dismissal with prejudice ends Sanastar's infringement action against Fresh Products on these two patents with no judgment in its favour. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties, but Sanastar is barred from reasserting the same claims against Fresh Products. Each party bearing its own fees means no fee-shifting award was entered against either side.
Claims extinguished vs. Fresh ProductsFresh Products exits litigation without a court judgment against it
Fresh Products LLC obtains closure on the infringement claims without a merits ruling against it. The with-prejudice dismissal prevents Sanastar from reviving the same suit. Fresh Products likewise bears its own legal costs. Whether any commercial arrangement underpins this outcome is not disclosed in the available public record.
No adverse judgment enteredAnti-splash device IP landscape remains contested
With two patents asserted and both parties actively represented by specialist IP firms, this dispute signals that urinal hygiene and anti-splash device technology is a commercially sensitive patent space. The outcome does not resolve the underlying claim merits — competitors and product teams in washroom hygiene should monitor WizKid and Fresh Products patent portfolios for ongoing filing activity and any further enforcement action targeting third parties.
Monitor portfolio activityFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sanastar, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fresh Products LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander D. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Austen Zuege | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Celine J. Crowson | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dustin R. DuFault | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas R. Spagnuolo | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Louise Boone | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott A. Hughes | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zac Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Concept Law Group - Fort Lauderdale | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hogan & Hartson - Washington | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hogan Lovells - Washington | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hogan Lovells US LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Malloy & Malloy - Miami | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Renner Otto | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Westman Champlin & Koehler - Minneapolis | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Westman, Champlin & Koehler - Minneapolis | Law Firm | Representing Sanastar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carrie L. Urrutia | Attorney | Counsel for Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jade L. Robinson | Attorney | Counsel for Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph F. Jennings | Attorney | Counsel for Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rhett D. Ramsey | Attorney | Counsel for Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Eastman & Smith Ltd.(Toledo) | Law Firm | Representing Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knobbe Martens - Irvine | Law Firm | Representing Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fresh Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jack Zouhary | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the urinal anti-splash device space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for the washroom hygiene sector — drawn from the Sanastar v. Fresh Products dispute and surrounding IP landscape.
Sanastar's WizKid patent family: continuation risk ahead
Sanastar's assertion of two related patents — US10294649B2 and US10036154B2 — with distinct application numbers suggests an intentional continuation filing strategy. Product teams should investigate whether additional continuation or divisional applications are pending in the WizKid anti-splash device family, as new grants could extend enforcement exposure beyond the two patents asserted here.
Continuation filing riskFiling trends in urinal hygiene and fluid-deflection technology
The commercial dispute between WizKid and Fresh Products' Tsunami device points to active competitive innovation in urinal splash control. Tracking filing trends in anti-splash inserts, fluid-deflection screens, and washroom hygiene devices across major patent offices can surface emerging competitors and identify white space for next-generation product development.
Active innovation areaFresh Products' IP position in washroom hygiene
Fresh Products LLC — maker of the Tsunami anti-splash device — retained Knobbe Martens for its defence, suggesting it takes IP seriously. Analysing Fresh Products' own patent portfolio in the washroom hygiene and odour-control segment can reveal whether it holds defensive IP capable of cross-licensing or whether it relies primarily on design freedom and trade dress.
Defensive portfolio checkAdjacent innovation space around anti-splash device materials and coatings
Beyond device geometry, the anti-splash washroom sector shows potential white space in antimicrobial coatings, biodegradable substrate materials, and IoT-enabled maintenance tracking for urinal hygiene products. These adjacent areas may sit outside the claims of US10294649B2 and US10036154B2, offering design-around or blue-ocean R&D pathways for new market entrants.
Design-around R&D pathwaySimilar urinal hygiene device patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving washroom hygiene devices and anti-splash technology filed in U.S. district courts, including the Ohio Northern District.
What this case signals for the washroom hygiene IP landscape
Two competing anti-splash device brands, two patents, and a 458-day dispute ending in mutual dismissal — here is what product and IP teams should take away.
With-prejudice dismissal bars Sanastar from re-suing Fresh Products on these patents
The stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a hard stop for these two patents against Fresh Products LLC. Sanastar's WizKid portfolio may still be enforced against other market participants, and patent professionals should track any new applications or continuations in the anti-splash device family for future enforcement signals.
Fee neutrality suggests neither party gained clear leverage by close
The each-party-bears-own-fees clause is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a decisive win for either side. In disputes of this duration, a neutral fee outcome typically signals that claim strength and commercial risk were roughly balanced at resolution — though the specific drivers are not disclosed in the record.
Sanastar v Fresh — key questions answered
Sanastar asserted two patents: US10294649B2 (application US16/023862) and US10036154B2 (application US15/342543), both covering urinal anti-splash device technology. The accused products were Fresh Products' Tsunami anti-splash device and Sanastar's own WizKid Splash Hog.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c). Dismissal with prejudice means the action is treated as a final adjudication on the merits — Sanastar cannot refile the same infringement claims against Fresh Products on these patents. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal bars Sanastar from reasserting infringement claims against Fresh Products on US10294649B2 and US10036154B2 in any future action. The patents remain valid and enforceable against other third parties, but the claim bar applies specifically to Fresh Products.
Sanastar was represented by a team spanning Hogan Lovells, Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar LLP, Concept Law Group, Westman Champlin & Koehler, and Malloy & Malloy, among others. Fresh Products was represented by Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP and Eastman & Smith Ltd. in Toledo.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice does not affect the validity or enforceability of either patent. No invalidity ruling was entered. Both US10294649B2 and US10036154B2 remain live and enforceable against parties other than Fresh Products. Competitors and manufacturers in the urinal anti-splash device market should conduct FTO analysis against both patents.
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.