Aegis Escapes Life Spine’s Contempt Charge in Implant Fight

An Illinois federal judge decided not to hold Aegis Spine Inc. in contempt after it continued to push ahead with patent protection on a spinal implant device, a move rival Life Spine Inc. said violated an injunction in the companies’ trade secret fight.

Life Spine has accused Aegis of stealing trade secrets for a spinal implant. It secured a preliminary injunction preventing Aegis and its parent, L&K Biomed Co. Ltd., from “seeking or obtaining any patents” related to Aegis’ competing implant until the case is over.

Aegis had several patent applications pending at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when the injunction was entered. It continued to prosecute the applications, which Life Spine argued violated the injunction.

Magistrate Judge Young Kim in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said in a Monday order Aegis can’t be held in contempt because the injunction order wasn’t “unambiguous” on how Aegis should have handled the pending patent applications.

“This court cannot hold Aegis, L&K, or their officers in contempt for violating the PI Order because there is ‘a fair ground of doubt’ as to the wrongfulness of Ageis’s and L&K’s responses to USPTO actions in connection with the subject matter patent applications,” Kim said.

‘Plunging Forward’

Life Spine makes devices to treat spinal disorders, including a small expandable implant that treats severe back pain, called the ProLift Expandable Spacer System.

The suit alleged Aegis, a one-time business partner, worked with L&K to steal Life Spine’s trade secrets and develop a competing device, the AccelFix-XT. Kim granted Life Spine’s request for a preliminary injunction in March 2021.

Aegis was issued two design patents in August related to the AccelFix-XT, and two other patent applications are pending.

While Life Spine argued the prohibition on “seeking or obtaining any patents” meant Aegis can’t work on any patents related to AccelFix-XT technology, Kim said Life Spine’s position ignored the many “nuances, deadlines, and statutory requirements” of the patent application process.

“What Life Spine essentially seeks here is a finding that the PI Order’s prohibition on ‘seeking or obtaining any patents’ requires Aegis to embark down an uncertain path of pursuing deadline extensions involving USPTO discretion, and once it exhausts all options for extension, to file continuation applications that themselves may violate the PI order,” Kim wrote.

Kim said, without more detail, it “strains credulity” that the injunction had such a specific meaning for pending patent applications.

“That said, the court believes that Aegis and L&K could have avoided this motion practice if they had challenged the broad application of the PI order with this court of the Seventh Circuit, instead of plunging forward without pausing,” Kim wrote.

Life Spine is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Aegis is represented by Jones Day.

The case is Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc., N.D. Ill., No. 19-cv-07092, 1/31/22.