Federal Circuit IP

Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co.

Published July 1, 2026

Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, dissent by Prost)

 

Overview: The DTSA SOL period may begin when the plaintiff knows of access to trade secrets plus a similar competing product, even before detailed proof of misappropriation.

Facts / Procedural History

  • Insulet manufactures an adhesive wearable insulin patch pump called the OmniPod®. EOFlow developed a similar product called EOPatch®.
  • From March to May of 2018, EOFlow employed Steve DiIanni, former engineering director at Insulet and was entrusted with the research and development efforts for the OmniPod.
  • On August 3, 2023, Insulet sued EOFlow for trade secret misappropriation.
  • Under the DTSA, the statute of limitations expires 3 years after the date on which misappropriation would have been discovered or reasonably discovered.
  • The jury found EOFlow misappropriated Insulet’s trade secrets and awarded $452 million to Insulet. District court reduced damages to $50 million with a permanent injunction.

Issue: whether Insulet is barred by the statute of limitations to recover damages.

Holding / Analysis: the Federal Circuit reversed, finding:

  • The statute of limitations barred Insulet’s claims for trade secret misappropriation.
  • The SOL only requires enough knowledge to plead a claim (and does not require that plaintiff prevail on that claim).
  • Plaintiff Insulet had enough to plead misappropriation once it knew: (1) a former employee with knowledge of the trade secrets was working for the competitor and (2) that that competitor’s product was similar to its trade secret technology (access-plus-similarity).
  • Access: Insulet knew that its former employee possessed detailed technical information and worked for EOFlow as indicated by internal emails from March 2019.
  • Similarity: Insulet knew that the EOPatch was similar to their product as demonstrated by Insulet’s employees commenting on the similarity between the products in June 2018 and Insulet’s employees visiting EOFlow’s website before the critical date.
  • Each misappropriated trade secret has the same SOL because each asserted trade secret was disclosed in a single action to EOFlow for the same purpose.
  • Three of the four asserted trade secrets were directly barred by SOL. The occlusion detection algorithm is also time barred because it shared the same accrual date.

Dissent (Prost)

  • Access must require more than just the fact that a former employee has access to trade secrets and now works for the defendant.
  • On similarity, EOFlow was evasive and prevented Insulet employees from inspecting the device. EOPatch was described in a 500-page prospectus filed with Korean regulators months before the critical date. This would fall under maximum feasible diligence.
  • Emphasized that it is the role for the jury, not the judges, to weigh evidence.

Takeaways: You can bring a trade secret misappropriation claim without detailed proof at the outset. Allegation that a former employee had access to the trade secret and is now developing a similar product for a competitor is sufficient to file a complaint.