The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has denied Aegis Spine, Inc.’s motion asking the court for a stay of the preliminary injunction in its ongoing legal battle with Life Spine, Inc.
Court Denies Aegis’ Motion in Ongoing Legal Battle
1 min read Premium comments
#lifespineSecondary#aegisispine
The litigation involves an expandable spinal medical device designed and developed by Huntley, Illinois-based Life Spine—ProLift Expandable Spacer System. The expandable cage is inserted into the patient’s spine to restore spinal disc height.
Life Spine is suing Englewood, Colorado-based Aegis for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of trade secrets. It is alleging that Aegis reverse engineered its ProLift implant to create the AccelFix-XT expandable cage.
The preliminary injunction prevents Aegis from developing, manufacturing, marketing, or selling any items in its AccelFix-XT line of medical devices. Aegis has already appealed the preliminary injunction.
While the appeal is pending, Aegis filed a motion “for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending the appeal’s outcome.” In considering a request for a stay pending appeal, the court looks at four factors including the likelihood of success on appeal and “whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay.”
In its denial of Aegis’ motion, the court pointed to the court’s original finding that Life Spine is likely to succeed on its trade secrets claims. The court also stated that the preliminary injunction could still be affirmed based on “the court’s finding that Life Spine is likely to succeed on other grounds.” Notably, Life Spine’s breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment claims.
The court was also not persuaded by Aegis’ argument that it would be “harmed by lost sales during the appeal’s pendency.” The court stated that “Aegis survived for years as a company before the AccelFix-XT existed, and the preliminary injunction allows it to continue distributing other spinal implants and medical devices.”
Life Spine CEO Michael Butler commented, “The Court’s ruling validates our claims and we appreciate the thorough analysis of the issues presented. The ruling protects the proprietary technology around our PROLIFT Expandable Implants.”
For OTW’s recent coverage of the litigation, see “Oops! Court Says Company Reverse Engineered Expandable Cage.”
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.