On August 28, 2025, a Delaware jury ruled that Life Spine’s ProLift expandable interbody implants infringed multiple claims of a valid Globus Medical patent tied to its RISE® expandable cage platform. The panel awarded Globus roughly $9.5 million in damages — about $6 million in lost profits and $3.5 million in reasonable royalties, according to court filings and company disclosures.
For Globus, the decision validates sustained R&D investment in expandable cage technology and reinforces its reputation as one of the industry’s most assertive defenders of intellectual property. For the broader spine sector, it’s another reminder that leadership in interbody and minimally invasive systems is contested not only in the operating room, but also in the courtroom.
Expandable Interbody Cages: A Crowded, Contested Market
Expandable cages have reshaped spinal fusion by allowing surgeons to insert a low-profile implant that expands in situ, restoring disc height and alignment while minimizing neural retraction. The RISE® platform (Ex:TLIF, Lateral Cage) for example, offers height restoration and lordotic correction through controlled in-situ expansion.
The clinical benefits are well recognized, making expandable systems one of the fastest-growing — and most contested — product categories in spine. That popularity has inevitably fueled overlapping designs and escalating IP disputes. Globus, Life Spine, Aegis Spine, and Synthes/DePuy have all fought in court over who controls key aspects of the technology.
Life Spine’s Parallel Battles: From Plaintiff to Defendant
Ironically, the ProLift platform at the center of Globus’s 2025 claims was the very system Life Spine had earlier defended in litigation against Aegis Spine and L&K Biomed. Life Spine alleged that their competing AccelFix-XT cage was developed using confidential ProLift know-how.
- In 2021, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction halting U.S. sales of AccelFix-XT.
- The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the injunction, noting that trade secrets can remain protectable even when aspects of a device are patented or publicly displayed.
- In December 2023, a permanent injunction barred Aegis, L&K Biomed, and affiliates from marketing the device in the United States.
The irony is stark: the same ProLift technology Life Spine successfully defended against alleged misappropriation was later found to infringe Globus’s earlier patent rights.
Globus Medical’s Own Legal History
The Globus–Life Spine clash is far from unique. Globus itself has been on the receiving end of similar claims.
- In 2007, it settled a trade secret case brought by Synthes (now part of Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy division), paying $13.5 million without admitting liability.
- In 2011, a Delaware jury found certain older Globus devices infringed three Synthes patents, awarding $16 million. Because the products were already off the market, the commercial impact was limited — but the case highlighted the risks of fast-paced innovation in a competitive field.
These episodes show how quickly roles can reverse: today’s defendant may be tomorrow’s plaintiff.
What are the Lessons for the Spine Industry?
Three key insights emerge when these disputes are viewed together:
- Patents as Shields and Swords
In crowded categories like expandable cages, patents are not just filings but strategic assets. Enforcing them protects exclusivity, revenues, and future growth. - Trade Secrets as Complementary Protections
The Life Spine–Aegis case illustrates that tolerances, actuation mechanics, and design pathways can remain protectable trade secrets even alongside issued patents. Both tools work in tandem to safeguard innovation. - Litigation as a Business Reality
With overlapping technologies and rapid development cycles, litigation is now part of the business model. Device companies must plan for IP battles alongside regulatory submissions and clinical validation.
Our Opinion
The Globus–Life Spine verdict strengthens Globus’s position in the expandable cage market and signals to competitors that patent risk is a fundamental factor in product strategy. More broadly, it underscores a deeper truth: in spine technology, innovation is tested in two arenas — the operating room, where patient outcomes are decided, and the courtroom, where the right to commercialize is secured.
With multiple players still advancing new expandable and MIS platforms — from lateral cages to endoscopic-compatible systems — this verdict is unlikely to be the last. If anything, it sets the stage for continued courtroom battles that will shape not just who leads the market, but how spine innovation itself evolves.
####