Disputes

Proactive Protection

Insights

About

Contact

Disputes

Case Validation
AI intelligence to assess case strength and likely outcome.

Damages prediction
Quantify potential damages with evidence backed estimates.

Litigation Funding
Non recourse capital to pursue strong trade secret claims.

Enforce your rights
When theft occurs, Tangibly delivers the proof, funding, and expertise to recover what is yours.

Insights

Reasonable Measures Podcast
Expert conversations on trade secrets, IP strategy, and the disputes shaping modern innovation.

Customer Stories
How companies use Tangibly to protect critical know how and pursue enforcement.

Sign up for The Tangibly Brief
Expert insights on trade secret protection and enforcement, delivered to your inbox.

About

Company
About Tangibly, our leadership, and career opportunities.

Newsroom
Press, announcements, and company updates.

Sim IP x Tangibly Litigation Financing Partnership
Learn more about how Tangibly and SIM IP are making trade secret enforcement more accessible for innovators.

Spineless Competition

by Chris Buntel | Jun 21, 2023 | Blog, Trade Secret Strategy

A good intersection of patents and trade secrets was found in Life Spine v. Aegis Spine. Many people view patents and trade secrets as mutually exclusive, but reality is much less clear.

Life Spine makes a spinal implant device, and Aegis agreed to be their distributor. Aegis also agreed to keep details of the implant confidential and not reverse engineer the product, but instead shared information with their parent company and helped them develop a competing device.

Life Spine sued Aegis for trade secret misappropriation and breach of the distribution agreement, and was granted a preliminary injunction against Aegis. On appeal, Aegis argued that Life Spine publicly disclosed the implant through its patent application, and by displaying and selling the implant.

The district court found that patents and trade secrets can co-exist. Life Spine’s patent did not disclose the final commercial dimensions of their product, and that Life Spine kept tight control over their device during and after sale. The distributors were even required to be present during the surgery. Life Spine took many measures to protect the precise dimensions of their product.

Additionally, while Life Spine spent three years developing their product, the competitor only took three months to apply for FDA approval.


Source:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21-1649/21-1649-2021-08-09.html

Last Updated:May, 2026

Table Of Content

Sign up for The Tangibly Brief

Expert insights on trade secret protection and enforcement, delivered to your inbox.