Carlsmed, Inc. v. DeGen Medical, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific patent and related litigation/PTAB activity.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with searches on the docket, parties, and the patent at issue.

The case is only ~10 days old. Let me check the docket details, the specific patent US 12251320, and any PTAB activity.

Status Snapshot

This case is in its first two weeks of life. Filed 2026-09-15 as No. 4:26-cv-04064 (D.S.C., Florence Div.) before Judge Joseph Dawson, III, it remains at the pleading stage as of today (2026-09-25). There are no answers, counterclaims, motions, Markman proceedings, discovery orders, trial events, or appeal activity to report — these simply have not happened yet. Below is the chronological record to date, with explicit flags where the record is thin or unverified.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2026-09-15 — Complaint filed. Carlsmed, Inc. (Nasdaq: CARL), a Carlsbad, CA-based maker of AI-enabled patient-specific spine implants (the aprevo line), filed suit against DeGen Medical, Inc. under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 / 35 U.S.C. § 145, nature-of-suit code 830 (Patent). Docket metadata identifies the presiding judge as Joseph Dawson, III. (PacerMonitor case page)

Relief sought: permanent injunctive relief and monetary damages. (No ad damnum figure disclosed.)

The asserted patents — a critical gap. Carlsmed's own press release and every derivative report (Becker's Spine Review, ODT, GlobeNewswire, MT Newswires, TipRanks) state only that the complaint asserts "eight of Carlsmed's patents relating to its implants, methods and systems." The company "released no other details." No patent numbers appear in any public reporting I could retrieve.

⚠️ Verification flag on US 12251320: The case metadata lists US 12,251,320 as the patent at issue. I could not confirm this number anywhere in connection with this litigation. A direct search for "12251320" returned unrelated patents and no Carlsmed/DeGen hit, and no news source ties that patent number to the suit. It is possible 12,251,320 is among the eight asserted patents (Carlsmed's portfolio does include related patient-specific implant/surgical-planning patents, e.g., US 11,854,683), but I cannot substantiate that from public sources. Treat the patent identification as unverified and confirm against the complaint text on PACER (Dkt. 1) or the Patent Center's "Litigation Search" tool before relying on it.

Public positioning (same day, 2026-09-15): Carlsmed issued a press release quoting Chairman/CEO Mike Cordonnier: the company is "committed to protecting the intellectual property that supports our patient-centric innovation." (Carlsmed IR release)

2026-09-16 — DeGen's initial response (extra-judicial). DeGen Medical CEO Craig Black told Becker's Spine Review: "We strongly disagree with Carlsmed's allegations and intend to vigorously defend our technology and intellectual property." This is a public statement, not a filed answer. (Becker's Spine Review)

Answer / counterclaims: None filed or reported as of 2026-09-25. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1), DeGen's response is typically due ~21 days after service (later if it waives service under Rule 4(d)). Expect the answer, invalidity contentions, and—given DeGen's posture—likely counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity in the coming weeks. These have not yet occurred.

Counsel of record (unconfirmed as to the party each represents): PacerMonitor lists Scott Allen Cole (Dority and Manning PA) and Tim F Williams as counsel in the case. Because the PacerMonitor excerpt is truncated and does not clearly pair names to parties, I cannot state with confidence which side each attorney represents. Dority & Manning is a Greenville, S.C. IP boutique frequently retained by patent defendants, which would be a plausible fit for DeGen, but that is inference, not verified fact.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None yet. There have been no motions to dismiss, transfer (e.g., § 1404(a) to a more convenient venue), stay pending IPR, or summary judgment. Given the case's age, any of these would be premature. The first motions of substance will likely be DeGen's Rule 12 motion or a scheduling/venue challenge, but nothing is on file publicly.

One strategic note worth watching: the Southern District of South Carolina, Florence Division, is a relatively uncommon patent venue. Carlsmed is a California company; DeGen is a South Carolina-based spinal device manufacturer (Greenville/Spartanburg area), which would explain the plaintiff's venue choice under § 1400(b) (defendant's residence/regular place of business).

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No Markman scheduling, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman order. In D.S.C., claim construction typically occurs only after the Rule 26(f) conference and a court-entered scheduling order. Nothing exists yet.

---

4. Discovery Milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no initial disclosures, no discovery served or reported. There is no strategic discovery record to analyze.

---

5. Trial, Verdict & Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. A D.S.C. patent case of this type would ordinarily be 2–4 years from filing to trial, i.e., plausibly 2028–2030 absent early settlement. Nothing is calendared.

---

6. Settlement / Dismissal / Judgment / Appeal — Present Posture

Active litigation. The case is live and pre-answer. There is no judgment, settlement, dismissal, or appeal. Current posture: complaint filed 2026-09-15; defendant publicly signaled a vigorous defense (2026-09-16); responsive pleading pending.

---

7. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) Proceedings

None found. I identified no IPR, PGR, or other AIA post-grant proceeding at the PTAB involving Carlsmed and DeGen, and none that I could tie to the asserted patents. This is consistent with the case's age — a defendant typically files an IPR petition months after receiving infringement contentions, and the review process itself takes 12–18 months to a final written decision. If DeGen pursues IPR, expect a petition in late 2026 or 2027, followed by a potential motion to stay the district case—the classic "IPR stay" sequence this prompt anticipates, but which has not yet begun here.

---

Bottom Line

Two open items require primary-source confirmation that public reporting cannot supply: (1) the actual identity of the eight asserted patents, including whether US 12,251,320 is among them; and (2) which counsel represents which party. Both should be verified against the docket (Dkt. 1) on PACER rather than relied upon from secondary sources. I have flagged rather than filled these gaps, per the no-fabrication rule.

I'll research counsel of record through docket, firm, and news sources.

Let me pull the docket page and search for counsel specifics.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record through multiple searches.

Let me dig into the docket entry and the specific attorneys named.

Let me verify the party alignment and pull the docket directly.

Counsel of Record — Defendant DeGen Medical, Inc.

Bottom line: the docket does not yet show a clean, confirmed defense-side appearance, and I was unable to verify with certainty which party two Dority & Manning attorneys represent. Here is what the record shows and what remains unverified.

1. Case verification

The PacerMonitor docket page confirms the case identifier and judge referenced in the metadata:

• Case No. 4:26-cv-04064 (D.S.C.), Carlsmed, Inc. v. DeGen Medical, Inc.
• Judge: Joseph Dawson, III
• Nature of suit: 830 – Property Rights – Patent; Cause: 35:145
• Filed: Sept. 15, 2026; docket last checked: Sept. 17, 2026
• Source: PacerMonitor case page (also mirrored at cdn.pacermonitor.com)

Note the docket's "last checked" stamp is Sept. 17, 2026 — eight days before today — so anything filed after that date would not appear in the source I could reach. I was unable to retrieve a CourtListener/RECAP docket sheet for this case number, and no Law360 or Reuters Legal item naming defense counsel surfaced.

2. Attorneys shown in the docket's party block

The PacerMonitor party listing shows two lawyers affiliated with Dority & Manning, PA in the case's representation block:

3. Material caveat — party alignment is not confirmed

The PacerMonitor snippet is truncated, and its "Defendant … Represented By …" ordering is the basis for attributing Cole and Williams to DeGen. I could not open the full page text to confirm the party-to-attorney mapping. Two facts counsel caution:

1. The same firm/attorney pairing (Cole, Dority & Manning) appears in an unrelated D.S.C. patent case, ABC IP, LLC v. Stryke Gunworks, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02358, where the same truncated "Represented By" formatting makes the party alignment equally ambiguous — so the pattern does not itself resolve the question. (PacerMonitor)
2. Dority & Manning maintains a San Diego office, and Carlsmed is headquartered in Carlsbad, CA, which means the firm is a plausible choice for either side. Plaintiff-side representation by Dority & Manning cannot be excluded on the current record.

Verification steps: (a) pull docket entries 1–15 on PACER for the complaint's caption/§ 1(a) party identification and any Notice of Appearance or pro hac vice motion (which would name the specific party and the out-of-state lead firm); (b) check the D.S.C. Local Civil Rule 83 filings for a local-counsel designation; (c) confirm whether Dority & Manning's Greenville office is acting as local counsel for an out-of-state lead firm (a common D.S.C. arrangement) — no such designation was visible.

4. What is not in the record

• No in-house counsel for DeGen Medical was identified in any docket listing or filing I could reach. DeGen's public response came only from CEO Craig Black, who told Becker's Spine Review on Sept. 16, 2026 that the company "strongly disagree[s] … and intend[s] to vigorously defend our technology and intellectual property" — a statement that did not name litigation counsel. (Becker's Spine Review; ODT Mag)
• No Rule 12 motion, answer, extension, or corporate disclosure statement was visible on the docket as of the last check, consistent with a case only ~10 days old.
• No PTAB/IPR counsel identified; no IPR petitions tied to this dispute surfaced in my searches.

5. Cross-reference / discrepancy flag

The previously generated overview correctly noted that the complaint asserts eight Carlsmed patents but that the asserted patent numbers were not publicly disclosed in the press coverage. The case metadata in this task lists US 12251320 as the patent at issue. Nothing in the record I retrieved independently corroborates or contradicts that identification, and the eight-patent scope stated in Carlsmed's own press release (GlobeNewswire via Manila Times) sits uneasily with a single listed patent number. This should be resolved from the complaint itself rather than from press coverage.

Recommendation: treat Scott A. Cole and Tim F. Williams (Dority & Manning, PA, Greenville, SC) as the likely counsel for a party in this case, but do not publish them as defendant's counsel until a Notice of Appearance or pro hac vice order is pulled from PACER confirming the party.

---

Sources: PacerMonitor docket (4:26-cv-04064); Dority & Manning firm profiles and May 2025 principals announcement; USPTO practitioner records (Reg. Nos. 60619, 47178); Becker's Spine Review; ODT Magazine; GlobeNewswire press release (Sept. 15, 2026). I was unable to paywall-access Law360/Reuters Legal for this matter and found no coverage there naming counsel.