ActivArmor: The 3D-Printed Orthotics Warrant Inside Our Newchip Basket

AdValorem Research

ActivArmor, a Pueblo, Colorado-based medical device company founded in 2014, is pushing a pragmatic thesis: the orthotics and immobilization experience improves when casts and splints become digitally customized products rather than one-size-fits-all consumables. In mid-July, the company’s leadership highlighted a new partnership with iCare Urgent Care in Murrieta, California—positioned as ActivArmor’s first non-military “point of care” provider site in the state, enabling same-day or next-day local fabrication for patients in the region (LinkedIn).

This note is written as a company profile for a warrant we hold via the Newchip portfolio in the Frontier Alternatives Fund. The goal is to map the operational model, the key proof points we track, and the diligence questions that matter most for a manufacturing-enabled medtech workflow.

What ActivArmor makes (and why the form factor matters)

ActivArmor produces custom-fit, waterproof, breathable casts and splints that are 3D printed and fitted to a patient’s anatomy (ActivArmor). The company positions the product as a modern alternative to traditional plaster or fiberglass immobilization, emphasizing practicality (patients can shower; devices can be sanitized) and fit (custom geometry instead of generic sizing) (ActivArmor).

Two details matter for evaluation:

• Customization is not a “nice-to-have” in immobilization; it can drive comfort, compliance, and reduced rework when swelling changes or skin breakdown occurs.
• Manufacturing choices are clinical choices. Material properties, surface finish, and print repeatability influence weight, breathability, edges, and contact points—each of which can translate into patient experience and provider confidence.

How the workflow works: from scan to print to delivery

ActivArmor’s model connects clinical intake to digital manufacturing. In a third-party profile, the company described a process in which a clinician scans the injured limb using a mobile phone app, captures measurements and clinical inputs, and transmits the data for device design and production (The Fabricator). The same profile reports that ActivArmor can deliver custom-fitted orthoses to medical partners within four days, with rush orders shipping faster (The Fabricator).

Importantly, the company appears to be extending that workflow toward on-site fabrication. The July partnership announcement describes an “on-site fabrication system” at the iCare Urgent Care location in Murrieta, emphasizing local production and faster turnaround (LinkedIn). For investors, this shifts the operating question from “How many devices can a centralized facility ship?” to “How repeatable is the installation playbook across provider sites?”

Manufacturing stack and partners: why HP Multi Jet Fusion shows up

ActivArmor has been 3D printing devices in-house since 2015 using fused deposition modeling (FDM), but it has also explored higher-throughput production pathways. In HP’s case study, ActivArmor describes learning about HP Multi Jet Fusion through Avid Product Development, and frames Multi Jet Fusion as a route to expand production beyond its in-house FDM printers, cut production time, and potentially reduce post-print finishing steps (HP Reinvent). The same case study notes that devices produced via FDM required finishing like dips and sprays, implying labor and quality-control intensity that may become a constraint at scale (HP Reinvent).

From a diligence perspective, we pay attention to:

• Print economics per device by printer type and utilization (FDM vs. powder-bed systems such as Multi Jet Fusion), including labor and finishing.
• Quality system maturity when production shifts from one facility to multiple “point of care” sites.
• Material and surface outcomes (comfort, edges, hygiene) as a measurable driver of patient compliance and clinician preference.

Regulatory posture and device classification signals

On its site, ActivArmor states that it is listed with the FDA as a Class I splint and is ISO-10993 certified for biocompatibility (ActivArmor). For an investor audience, this is less about checking a box and more about understanding the compliance perimeter: what aspects of the workflow are standardized, what steps vary by provider site, and how the company documents repeatability when digital designs translate into physical devices.

Commercial adoption signals we track

One outside profile reports that ActivArmor has 3D printed tens of thousands of casts in the U.S. and cites corporate partnerships across multiple geographies (including Canada, Australia, Greece, and the Middle East) (The Fabricator). The same article references clinician adoption examples, including Jacksonville Orthopaedic Institute via an orthopedic surgeon quoted in the profile (The Fabricator).

At the “point of care” end of the spectrum, the iCare Urgent Care partnership is notable because urgent-care settings have different throughput and staffing dynamics than orthopedic specialty practices, which can stress-test the simplicity of scanning, printing, and fitting in real-world flows (LinkedIn).

Non-dilutive capital as a capability signal: the 2024 DoD award

In 2024, ActivArmor received a Department of Defense award listed on SBIR.gov for $1,235,490 under contract HT9425-24-C-0061, with a project titled “ActivArmor Rapid Manufacturing of Personalized Braces and Splints for Musculoskeletal Injury For Military Operational Medicine” (SBIR.gov). The award abstract describes development of a next-generation 3D-printed custom orthosis system tailored to military needs, emphasizing durability, comfort, and readiness outcomes (SBIR.gov).

We don’t treat non-dilutive funding as a proxy for product-market fit, but we do treat it as a useful indicator of programmatic credibility: can the team scope requirements, deliver to specifications, and operate inside a higher-documentation environment.

Capitalization context (as publicly reported)

ActivArmor has described raising a modest amount of capital relative to many venture-backed medtech peers, with a mix of grants and strategic investors. In our internal warrant catalog, we track the names that show up consistently in public descriptions—Fabric VC, Nationwide Insurance Company of America, the City of Pueblo, and the Colorado Office of Economic Development—without extrapolating beyond that public set.

Key questions for the next phase

ActivArmor’s trajectory sits at the intersection of medtech workflows and distributed manufacturing. The core questions we continue to evaluate are operational rather than theoretical:

• Can “point of care” scale cleanly? What does installation, training, and ongoing support look like when fabrication happens at provider sites?
• Does the unit economics curve improve with throughput? How do print costs, finishing labor, and scrap rates change as volume increases?
• What is the defensible moat? Is it software workflow, clinical relationships, manufacturing playbooks, IP, or a combination?
• What is the reimbursement posture? Where does the value land (providers vs. payors vs. patients), and how durable is that across settings?

Takeaway: ActivArmor is a reminder that some of the most durable “frontier” businesses are not defined by novelty alone—they are defined by a workflow that reduces friction for clinicians and improves lived experience for patients. As we monitor the Newchip warrant basket, we will focus on whether the company’s distributed fabrication model can preserve quality and economics as it expands beyond early adopter sites.