Wiesner Healthcare v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Incontinence Clamp Patents
Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLC secured a default judgment in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous marketplace defendants accused of infringing two patents covering external male incontinence clamps. The case resolved in 248 days without any defence being mounted.
Schedule A takedown: default judgment in a medical device IP dispute
Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLC filed suit on 12 August 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Sunil R. Harjani, asserting infringement of US10624728B2 and US11351020B2 — two patents protecting external male incontinence clamp technology. The defendants were identified only as anonymous individuals and entities on a ‘Schedule A’, a naming convention commonly associated with e-commerce enforcement actions targeting online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on 17 April 2025 via default judgment after the named defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise defend. Wiesner’s motion for entry of default and default judgment was granted in full, meaning the court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as admitted and entered judgment against the defaulting defendants without any merits adjudication. Default judgment does not constitute a finding of patent validity on the merits.
A resolution in 248 days is consistent with the typical timeline for uncontested Schedule A enforcement actions, where defendants frequently fail to engage with US litigation. What remains unknown from the public record is the quantum of damages awarded, any injunctive relief terms, and whether enforcement against the underlying sellers proved commercially effective. The absence of defence counsel for any defendant is notable.
Filing to Default Judgment in 248 days
248 days — resolved at default, well below median contested patent trial duration
Default judgment entered: what this ruling means for both parties
Default judgment — no merits ruling on patent validity
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. The court deems the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations admitted and enters judgment accordingly. Critically, this is not a finding that the patents are valid or infringed on the merits — it is a procedural outcome driven by the defendants’ non-appearance. Validity of US10624728B2 and US11351020B2 remains untested.
Procedural default — no validity rulingWiesner secures judgment without a contested trial
Default judgment gives Wiesner Healthcare a court order against the defaulting defendants, potentially including damages and injunctive relief. This enables enforcement actions such as marketplace takedowns and asset restraint. However, the practical value depends on the ability to identify and reach the underlying sellers — a persistent challenge in Schedule A litigation targeting anonymous e-commerce actors.
Judgment granted — enforcement pendingDefendants deemed in default — judgment entered unopposed
By failing to appear, the Schedule A defendants forfeited all defences, including any challenge to patent validity, claim scope, or non-infringement. They are now subject to whatever relief the court awarded, which may include damages and a permanent injunction. Any defendant seeking to vacate the judgment would need to satisfy the high standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), demonstrating excusable neglect or another enumerated ground.
All defences waived by non-appearanceSchedule A enforcement reinforces e-commerce IP risk for marketplace sellers
This case is consistent with a pattern of medical device IP holders using Schedule A complaints to pursue anonymous online sellers efficiently. Default judgments in this context can trigger platform-level enforcement — product delisting, account suspension, and payment holds — without the patent’s validity being tested. Sellers of competing incontinence products on US marketplaces should treat these patents as live enforcement risks requiring FTO review.
Live enforcement risk for marketplace sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLC | Company | Medical device IP holding company — holder of US10624728B2 and US11351020B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | Anonymous online marketplace sellers listed on Schedule A — no legal representation enteredSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Adam Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order accepts Wiesner Healthcare’s motion in full, deeming the defendant in default and entering judgment against it. The phrasing ‘deemed in default’ confirms a procedural outcome under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 — not a merits adjudication. No validity or infringement finding was made on the evidence. For Wiesner, the judgment provides an enforceable court order; for the defendants, the absence of any appearance means all defences — including invalidity — were permanently waived in this proceeding.
US10624728B2 & US11351020B2 — External Male Incontinence Clamp Technology
US10624728B2 (application US15/253051) and US11351020B2 (application US17/305844) both protect external male incontinence clamp technology — a non-invasive medical device category used to manage male urinary incontinence by applying controlled external compression. The two patents represent a continuation-type portfolio, with the later application building on the earlier filing, suggesting Wiesner has layered claim coverage across device construction and methods of use.
For competitors and online sellers, the existence of two related patents with staggered application dates signals that Wiesner has deliberately built a patent family around this product category. The medical device market for external male incontinence products is a commercially active segment within the broader continence care market. Any seller importing or distributing similar clamp-type devices in the US faces non-trivial infringement exposure, particularly given Wiesner’s demonstrated enforcement activity in federal court.
Should you run an FTO against US10624728B2 and US11351020B2?
If your organisation designs, imports, or sells external male incontinence clamps or functionally similar compression devices in the US market, both patents warrant formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The Schedule A enforcement model used here — targeting online marketplace sellers specifically — suggests that e-commerce distribution channels are an active focus of Wiesner’s enforcement strategy. Sellers on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10624728B2 and US11351020B2 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that could support an IPR petition. Given that neither patent has been subjected to adversarial validity challenge in litigation, a thorough prior art search is especially valuable for any party seeking to compete in this product category with confidence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10624728B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent cases in medical devices — Northern District of Illinois
The Northern District of Illinois is a primary venue for Schedule A medical device patent enforcement. Explore related cases targeting anonymous online sellers of competing products.
What this case signals for the medical device e-commerce IP landscape
Wiesner’s default judgment illustrates how Schedule A litigation can be a cost-efficient enforcement tool for medical device patent holders targeting anonymous online sellers.
Schedule A litigation is an increasingly effective IP enforcement mechanism
Filing against anonymous marketplace defendants under a Schedule A complaint allows patent holders to obtain default judgments swiftly when sellers fail to engage. For holders of medical device patents like Wiesner’s, this model enables platform-level enforcement without the cost of a contested trial — but it depends heavily on the ability to identify and reach underlying sellers.
Default judgment leaves patent validity formally untested
US10624728B2 and US11351020B2 have not been subjected to adversarial validity scrutiny in this proceeding. Competitors or sellers with resources to mount a defence could pursue IPR at the USPTO or challenge validity in a future contested action. The default here is not a clean bill of validity health for these patents.
Wiesner v Individuals — key questions answered
Wiesner Healthcare Innovation, LLC asserted two patents: US10624728B2 (application US15/253051) and US11351020B2 (application US17/305844), both covering external male incontinence clamp technology.
A Schedule A defendant refers to a group of anonymous or pseudonymous individuals and entities — typically online marketplace sellers — identified on a sealed list rather than named in the complaint caption. This approach is common in e-commerce IP enforcement cases where plaintiffs sue multiple defendants simultaneously while keeping their identities sealed initially to prevent asset flight or product removal before an injunction is secured.
A default judgment does not constitute a merits finding on patent validity. Because the defendants failed to appear or defend, the court accepted Wiesner’s allegations as admitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. US10624728B2 and US11351020B2 have not been subjected to adversarial validity challenge, meaning IPR petitions or a future contested litigation could still challenge these patents’ validity.
The case was filed on 12 August 2024 and closed on 17 April 2025 — a duration of 248 days. This timeline is consistent with uncontested Schedule A enforcement actions, which tend to resolve faster than contested patent cases because no defendant appears to slow the proceedings.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (case no. 1:24-cv-07124) and presided over by Judge Sunil R. Harjani. The Northern District of Illinois is one of the most active venues nationally for Schedule A patent enforcement actions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.