Vertos Medical v. Folsom Metal Products: 12-Patent Spinal Device Dispute Settles
Vertos Medical filed suit in the Northern District of Alabama against Folsom Metal Products and six co-defendants over the DKS device kit, asserting 12 patents covering minimally invasive spinal decompression technology. After 374 days of litigation, the parties reached dual confidential settlement agreements in November 2024, resolving all claims across two defendant groups.
A 12-patent spinal device dispute resolved by dual confidential settlements
Vertos Medical, Inc. — a medical device company holding an extensive portfolio of patents covering minimally invasive lumbar decompression technology — filed suit on November 14, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 2:23-cv-01544) against Folsom Metal Products, Inc. and six individual and entity co-defendants, including Greg Martin, Louis Bojrab, DKS, LLC, Deanna Miller, Jeff Wright, and Natalie Blasco. The complaint asserted infringement of 12 patents — a mix of utility and design patents — through the defendants’ manufacture, sale, or distribution of the DKS device kit.
The case closed on November 22, 2024, one day after the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The resolution involved two separate confidential settlement agreements executed on November 20, 2024: the Folsom Agreement covering Folsom Metal Products, Greg Martin, Louis Bojrab, and DKS, LLC; and the Miller Agreement covering Deanna Miller, Jeff Wright, and Natalie Blasco. Notably, Vertos’s third and fourth patent claims against Folsom were dismissed without prejudice — preserving the right to re-file on those claims — while all remaining claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing further litigation on those issues.
The 374-day duration suggests the case progressed through meaningful pre-trial activity before settlement momentum built. The bifurcated settlement structure — two agreements covering distinct defendant groups — is consistent with defendants occupying different roles in the accused supply chain, with manufacturers, distributors, and individual actors potentially negotiating separately. The confidential nature of both agreements means the financial terms, any licensing arrangements, and any product design-change commitments remain unknown from the public record. The dismissal without prejudice of specific claims against Folsom is a strategically noteworthy carve-out that Vertos may leverage in future proceedings.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 374 days
374 days — slightly above median duration for multi-defendant patent cases resolved by settlement in district court
Dual confidential settlements: what the dismissal structure means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with a critical without-prejudice carve-out
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows dismissal by agreement of all parties without court order. Critically, the stipulation distinguishes between claim types: Vertos’s third and fourth patent infringement claims against Folsom are dismissed without prejudice — meaning Vertos retains the right to re-file those specific claims — while all other claims and all counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing them.
Without prejudice carve-out preservedVertos retains future enforcement rights on two patent claims against Folsom
The without-prejudice dismissal of claims three and four against Folsom is a meaningful concession extracted in settlement: Vertos does not fully release its enforcement position on those specific patents. Combined with confidential agreement terms that could include royalties, licensing, or product restrictions, Vertos likely achieved commercial resolution while preserving optionality. The with-prejudice dismissal of remaining claims forecloses any re-litigation of those specific infringement theories.
Enforcement optionality retainedDefendants secure finality on most claims — but Folsom faces residual exposure
For the Miller group defendants (Deanna Miller, Jeff Wright, Natalie Blasco), the with-prejudice dismissal of all claims provides clean finality. For Folsom Metal Products and its associated defendants, the picture is less clear: while most claims are extinguished with prejudice, the without-prejudice dismissal of claims three and four means those specific patent infringement theories could be revived if the confidential settlement terms are not honoured or in future disputes.
Folsom retains residual exposureBifurcated settlement signals distinct supply-chain roles among defendants
The use of two separate settlement agreements — one for the manufacturer/distributor group and one for the individual defendants — suggests Vertos and its counsel distinguished between parties based on their commercial role in the DKS device kit supply chain. Companies in the spinal device sector should note that patent holders may pursue both corporate and individual actors simultaneously. The 12-patent assertion strategy across design and utility patents reflects a layered enforcement approach common in medical device IP disputes.
Multi-defendant IP strategyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Vertos Medical, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of 12 spinal decompression device patents including USD676964SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Folsom Metal Products, Inc. | Company | Metal products manufacturer and co-defendants alleged to have made/sold the DKS device kitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Deanna Miller | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Greg Martin | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Jeff Wright | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | John Reed | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Natalie Blasco | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | DKS, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Louis Bojrab | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cavender C. Kimble | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas Q. Hahn | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth L Stameshkin | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Irving W Jones , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James T. Dawkins, IV | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kathleen M Marcus | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcus R. Chatterton | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Orion Armon | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven M. Hanle | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wesley Horton | Attorney | Counsel for Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Balch & Bingham, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cooley, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, PC | Law Firm | Representing Vertos Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Glenn E. Forbis | Attorney | Counsel for Folsom Metal Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry E Lagman | Attorney | Counsel for Folsom Metal Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Bradley Luchsinger | Attorney | Counsel for Folsom Metal Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Keith P Driscoll | Attorney | Counsel for Folsom Metal Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Harness dickey & Pierce PLC | Law Firm | Representing Folsom Metal Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Anna M Manasco | Judge | Alabama Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s bifurcated dismissal structure is legally precise and commercially deliberate. The with-prejudice resolution of the majority of claims — including all counterclaims — provides mutual finality on the core infringement dispute. However, the explicit carve-out dismissing claims three and four against Folsom without prejudice is an unusual feature of an otherwise comprehensive settlement, suggesting those claims hold continuing strategic value for Vertos. The confidential settlement agreements govern the operative commercial terms, meaning the public record reveals the procedural outcome but not the substantive resolution.
USD676964S and 11 further patents — minimally invasive spinal decompression devices
The asserted portfolio spans 12 patents filed across multiple application dates, comprising eight design patents (USD-series) and four utility patents covering minimally invasive lumbar decompression technology. The design patents protect the ornamental appearance of specific surgical instruments used in the procedure, while the utility patents — including US7942830B2, US8882772B2, US8608762B2, and US7896879B2 — protect the functional methods and device architectures underlying the MILD® procedure or analogous decompression approaches. The breadth of this portfolio, covering both form and function, reflects deliberate prosecution strategy.
For competitors developing spinal decompression device kits, this portfolio represents a formidable enforcement barrier. The combination of design and utility coverage means that design-arounds addressing one patent family may still infringe others. The DKS device kit — the accused product — appears to have been positioned as a competing or compatible instrument set, making this case a direct market-protection enforcement action. With the settlement preserving some claims without prejudice, the portfolio remains actively relevant for any company operating in the percutaneous lumbar decompression space.
Should you run an FTO against Vertos Medical’s spinal decompression patent portfolio?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing device kits used in minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedures — including instrument sets, cannulas, or surgical tools with comparable functional or ornamental features — should treat this 12-patent portfolio as a primary FTO target. The assertion of both design and utility patents against the DKS kit demonstrates that Vertos actively monitors the competitive landscape and is willing to pursue multiple defendant types simultaneously, including manufacturers, distributors, and individuals.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map each of Vertos’s 12 asserted patents against your product’s design and functional claims, identify claim-by-claim overlap, and surface prior art relevant to invalidity analysis. For the design patent subset, Eureka’s visual similarity tools can assess ornamental design proximity. Run a targeted FTO before product launch or acquisition of any spinal decompression device line touching this technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0676964S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar spinal device patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving multi-patent enforcement actions over minimally invasive spinal decompression instruments in U.S. district courts, including design and utility patent assertions against device kit manufacturers.
What this case signals for the spinal device IP landscape
Vertos’s 12-patent enforcement action reflects a maturing and aggressive IP strategy in minimally invasive spinal decompression technology.
Layered design + utility patent portfolios create compounding infringement exposure
Vertos asserted eight design patents alongside four utility patents — a strategy that multiplies damages theories and complicates invalidity defenses. Competitors and device kit manufacturers in the spinal decompression space should audit both product aesthetics and functional claims against this portfolio, not just utility patents.
Individual defendants named alongside corporate entities — a deterrence signal
The inclusion of seven named defendants — including individuals alongside corporate entities — is consistent with a strategy designed to maximise settlement pressure and signal willingness to pursue personal liability. R&D and product teams at competing device companies should be aware that individual involvement in allegedly infringing activities may not be insulated by corporate structure.
Vertos v Folsom — key questions answered
Vertos Medical asserted 12 patents: eight design patents (USD676964S, USD635671S, USD610259S, USD611146S, USD619252S, USD619253S, USD621939S, and one further design patent) and four utility patents (US7942830B2, US8882772B2, US8608762B2, US7896879B2), all covering spinal decompression device technology and instruments used in the DKS device kit.
The case resolved via two confidential settlement agreements on November 20, 2024, followed by a Rule 41 stipulated dismissal. Most claims were dismissed with prejudice, providing finality. However, Vertos’s third and fourth patent claims against Folsom Metal Products were dismissed without prejudice — meaning those specific claims could be re-filed in future proceedings, representing a meaningful carve-out from the settlement’s finality.
The DKS device kit is the accused product in this litigation, allegedly manufactured or distributed by defendants including Folsom Metal Products and DKS, LLC. Based on the patents asserted, the kit appears to involve instruments used in minimally invasive spinal decompression procedures. Vertos alleged that the kit’s design and functional features infringed both the ornamental appearance and the operational methods covered by its patent portfolio.
The stipulation identifies two distinct settlement agreements: the Folsom Agreement (covering Folsom Metal Products, Greg Martin, Louis Bojrab, and DKS, LLC) and the Miller Agreement (covering Deanna Miller, Jeff Wright, and Natalie Blasco). This bifurcated structure is consistent with the defendants occupying different commercial roles — likely manufacturer/distributor versus individual actors — and negotiating separately based on their respective liability exposure and ability to pay.
A dismissal without prejudice on Vertos’s third and fourth claims against Folsom means those specific patent infringement causes of action were not extinguished by the settlement. Vertos retains the right to reassert those claims in future litigation, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and the confidential terms of the Folsom Agreement. This contrasts with the with-prejudice dismissal of remaining claims, which permanently bars re-litigation of those theories.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.