Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd., No. 2025-1807 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026)

The Take-Away

In May 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out a $59 million verdict for trade secret misappropriation. Insulet Corporation, which makes the “Omnipod” insulin patch pump, won the verdict against Korean competitor, EOFlow. The jury in the case awarded $452 million, the judge reduced that to $59 million, and the Federal Circuit reduced it to zero. Why? Insulet waited too long to sue, and under the federal DTSA, the delay was fatal to the entire case.

The decision is a stark reminder that in trade secret disputes, having a strong case isn’t enough. You also have to bring the case fairly quickly — within three years from the time when you had enough information to suspect that you had a problem, not from the time when you had good proof to file or win litigation.

What Happened

Insulet makes the “Omnipod,” a wearable insulin patch pump. EOFlow was its Korean competitor selling an insulin patch pump called the “EOPatch 2.”

As it often happens, one of Insulet’s chief engineers, Steve DiIanni, left Insulet and joined EOFlow to help it develop its EOPatch 2. Between March and May 2018, DiIanni consulted for EOFlow, allegedly giving it Insulet’s confidential CAD files for the Omnipod, Insulet’s soft cannula design, and Insulet’s occlusion-detection algorithm — the technology that senses when the pump’s tubing is blocked.

Insulet didn’t file suit until August 2023 — more than five years after DiIanni’s consulting work ended. That delay may have seemed reasonable at the time, but it eventually doomed Insulet’s entire case.

Insulet Wins at the District Court

At the district court, the District of Massachusetts, Insulet’s case was very successful. After a five-week trial in late 2024, a jury found EOFlow had misappropriated four of Insulet’s trade secrets, three of them willfully, and awarded Insulet $452 million, including $170 million in compensatory damages and $282 million in exemplary (punitive) damages. The judge also entered a permanent injunction barring EOFlow from offering to sell any product built using Insulet’s trade secrets. EOFlow was also ordered to turn over certain patent applications and submit to ongoing compliance audits. Eventually, the judge reduced the damages award $59.4 million to avoid giving Insulet a double recovery. In case it was not obvious, litigating a case like this for 16 months and pursuing a five-week jury trial was very, very expensive and time consuming.

At the Federal Circuit

On appeal, the Federal Circuit focused on the question whether Insulet filed its case within the applicable three-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d).

The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) has a three-year statute of limitations. The limitations period starts when the plaintiff discovers the misappropriation or reasonably should have discovered it. Insulet filed suit on August 3, 2023, which meant any claim it discovered or reasonably should have discovered before August 3, 2020, was barred by limitations.

The Federal Circuit held that Insulet had indeed waited too long. Importantly, the court reasoned that a company doesn’t need every technical detail to be “on notice” of a trade secret problem — it just needs to know about “access and similarity,” i.e., that (1) the defendant had access to plaintiff’s confidential information through a former employee; and (2) the defendant’s resulting product looked similar to the plaintiff’s product. This is because the standard for pleading a DTSA claim provides that a plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence showing access to the trade secrets and similarities between those secrets and the accused product.

The Federal Circuit cited an example from the Fifth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over most DTSA cases from Texas. In Seatrax v. Sonbeck, the Fifth Circuit found that the limitations period began when a crane manufacturer knew that individuals who had access to technical information, manuals, service bulletins, computer software, and manufacturer drawings formed another company to sell crane parts that were similar to the trade-secret owner’s designs.

The plaintiff Insulet argued that this access and similarity test should not apply and that it did not have any “detailed and specific knowledge” of the misappropriation, such as might be sufficient evidence to support a lawsuit. The Federal Circuit rejected that approach and reiterated that proof or even knowledge of relevant facts underlying the misappropriation is not required.

Insulet also argued that even if some of its individual trade secret claims might be barred by limitations, other individual claims were first discovered more recently and should still be viable. The Federal Circuit also rejected that approach. Under the DTSA, when related trade secrets are disclosed by the same person, involving the same defendant, in the same general relationship and time frame, the law treats it as “a single claim of misappropriation” under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d), with one shared statute of limitations. For Insulet, this meant that all of its related trade secret claims were barred. This is an important point. A company must diligently pursue all potential trade secret claims that arise from the same underlying situation, at the risk of losing them all.

Points to Remember in Your Business

• Investigate potential trade secret claims promptly. If you lose key employees who have access to important trade secrets regarding your product, and the employees are hired by a competitor who quickly develops a competing product that looks suspiciously similar, this may be sufficient information to trigger the statute of limitations.
• Don’t wait for certainty. The Federal Circuit made clear that companies don’t get to wait until they have a complete, provable case before the limitations period starts.
• Consider using pre-suit discovery to properly investigate a DTSA claim. Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure gives parties the opportunity to pursue discovery even before filing a lawsuit. Here, a company can petition a Texas court to take a deposition and seek documents to investigate a potential claim before deciding whether to sue at all. Be thankful if your business is located in Texas, as most other states do not offer this type of broad, pre-suit discovery.

For companies relying on trade secrets to protect valuable business information, a disciplined approach to identifying, documenting, monitoring, and enforcing those rights can help reduce risk and preserve available remedies if misappropriation occurs. Contact Conley Rose to discuss how your organization can strengthen its trade secret protection strategy and respond promptly to potential misuse.