Loading
Healthcare
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Trade Secret, Medical Devices, Cybersecurity, Economic Damages, Manufacturing
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Federal Circuit
Court:
Insulet Corporation sued EOFlow Co., Ltd., affiliated entities, and former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging misappropriation of confidential insulin patch pump design, engineering, and manufacturing information under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), along with related patent claims. The dispute followed the move of former Insulet personnel to EOFlow and EOFlow’s development of the EOPatch insulin delivery device. Insulet sought emergency injunctive relief, claiming that proprietary design history files, algorithms, CAD materials, and manufacturing processes had been improperly used.
In October 2023, the district court granted a preliminary injunction that restricted EOFlow’s manufacturing and commercialization activities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that injunction in June 2024, finding that the district court had not fully addressed statute-of-limitations issues, trade secret specificity, irreparable harm, and the public interest. The case then moved through full merits discovery and trial. After a December 2024 jury trial, the jury found EOFlow liable for misappropriation under the DTSA and awarded Insulet approximately $452 million in compensatory and exemplary damages. In April 2025, the district court entered judgment, reduced the monetary award to $59.4 million to avoid double recovery, and issued permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed the DTSA judgment, holding that EOFlow was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Insulet’s claim was barred by the DTSA’s three-year statute of limitations.
Insulet filed suit in Massachusetts federal court, alleging that EOFlow and former employees misappropriated confidential insulin patch pump design and manufacturing information. The complaint identified internal design history files, engineering documentation, algorithms, and production know-how as asserted trade secrets.
The district court issued a temporary restraining order limiting the disclosure and use of certain technical and manufacturing information. The order preserved the status quo while the court considered whether broader injunctive relief was warranted.
After briefing and hearings, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring EOFlow from manufacturing or commercializing products allegedly tied to Insulet’s confidential information. The ruling relied on findings regarding likely success on the merits and potential competitive harm, with later amendments addressing limited carveouts.
On interlocutory appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court found that irreparable harm must be supported by concrete evidence and that statute-of-limitations questions required closer review, particularly where the existence of a competing product did not necessarily reveal internal technical details.
After a month-long trial, the jury found six defendants liable for misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and awarded Insulet $452 million in total damages. During trial, Insulet presented expert testimony from Dr. Gregory Rattray on whether the company used reasonable measures to protect confidential technical information. Defendants challenged that evidence through expert testimony from Joseph Steinberg, but the district court later held that the conflict in expert opinions was for the jury to resolve. The jury found that Insulet satisfied the DTSA’s reasonable-measures requirement and concluded that defendants misappropriated Insulet trade secrets.
After the jury verdict, the district court denied renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. During this period, the court also entered judgment, reduced the monetary award, and issued permanent injunctive relief. These rulings were later reviewed by the Federal Circuit, which reversed the DTSA judgment on May 28, 2026.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s DTSA judgment in favor of Insulet. The appellate court held that EOFlow was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Insulet’s trade secret claim was barred by the DTSA’s three-year statute of limitations. That reversal displaced the DTSA liability judgment and the damages and permanent injunction entered after trial.
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Case Name:
Insulet Corporation v. EOFlow Co., Ltd.
Defend Trade Secrets Act DTSA
Trade Secret Misappropriation
Theft of Trade Secrets
Information Security
Biomedical Equipment
Pumps
Medical Intellectual Property
Economic Analysis
Insulet Corporation sued EOFlow Co., Ltd., affiliated entities, and former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging misappropriation of confidential insulin patch pump design, engineering, and manufacturing information under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), along with related patent claims. The dispute followed the move of former Insulet personnel to EOFlow and EOFlow’s development of the EOPatch insulin delivery device. Insulet sought emergency injunctive relief, claiming that proprietary design history files, algorithms, CAD materials, and manufacturing processes had been improperly used.
In October 2023, the district court granted a preliminary injunction that restricted EOFlow’s manufacturing and commercialization activities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that injunction in June 2024, finding that the district court had not fully addressed statute-of-limitations issues, trade secret specificity, irreparable harm, and the public interest. The case then moved through full merits discovery and trial. After a December 2024 jury trial, the jury found EOFlow liable for misappropriation under the DTSA and awarded Insulet approximately $452 million in compensatory and exemplary damages. In April 2025, the district court entered judgment, reduced the monetary award to $59.4 million to avoid double recovery, and issued permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed the DTSA judgment, holding that EOFlow was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Insulet’s claim was barred by the DTSA’s three-year statute of limitations.
Insulet filed suit in Massachusetts federal court, alleging that EOFlow and former employees misappropriated confidential insulin patch pump design and manufacturing information. The complaint identified internal design history files, engineering documentation, algorithms, and production know-how as asserted trade secrets.
The district court issued a temporary restraining order limiting the disclosure and use of certain technical and manufacturing information. The order preserved the status quo while the court considered whether broader injunctive relief was warranted.
After briefing and hearings, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring EOFlow from manufacturing or commercializing products allegedly tied to Insulet’s confidential information. The ruling relied on findings regarding likely success on the merits and potential competitive harm, with later amendments addressing limited carveouts.
On interlocutory appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court found that irreparable harm must be supported by concrete evidence and that statute-of-limitations questions required closer review, particularly where the existence of a competing product did not necessarily reveal internal technical details.
After a month-long trial, the jury found six defendants liable for misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and awarded Insulet $452 million in total damages. During trial, Insulet presented expert testimony from Dr. Gregory Rattray on whether the company used reasonable measures to protect confidential technical information. Defendants challenged that evidence through expert testimony from Joseph Steinberg, but the district court later held that the conflict in expert opinions was for the jury to resolve. The jury found that Insulet satisfied the DTSA’s reasonable-measures requirement and concluded that defendants misappropriated Insulet trade secrets.
After the jury verdict, the district court denied renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. During this period, the court also entered judgment, reduced the monetary award, and issued permanent injunctive relief. These rulings were later reviewed by the Federal Circuit, which reversed the DTSA judgment on May 28, 2026.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s DTSA judgment in favor of Insulet. The appellate court held that EOFlow was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Insulet’s trade secret claim was barred by the DTSA’s three-year statute of limitations. That reversal displaced the DTSA liability judgment and the damages and permanent injunction entered after trial.
Information Security and Trade Secret Protection Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Insulet presented expert testimony from Dr. Gregory Rattray on whether the company used reasonable measures to protect confidential technical information, a required element under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The district court stated that Dr. Rattray testified about Insulet’s internal-security policies, employee nondisclosure agreements, restricted access to trade-secret materials, and other physical and digital security measures. Defendants challenged that evidence through expert testimony from Joseph Steinberg, who criticized Insulet’s security protocols and trade-secret protection practices. The district court treated the conflict in expert testimony as an issue for the jury to resolve.
Trade Secret Misappropriation Expert Witness
Trade secret misappropriation experts are commonly consulted to explain statutory concepts such as improper acquisition, use, or disclosure of confidential information and to assist factfinders in applying those standards to technical evidence. In litigation involving complex design records, engineering documentation, or proprietary processes, these experts may help contextualize how such materials are evaluated under trade secret law.
Medical Device Design and Engineering Expert Witness
Medical device design and engineering expert witnesses are commonly consulted in litigation involving regulated medical technologies to explain device architecture, component functionality, and engineering design principles. In disputes where internal design documentation and technical records are at issue, these experts may assist factfinders in understanding how complex device systems operate and how design features are evaluated.
Economic Damages Expert Witness
Economic damages experts are commonly consulted in trade secret litigation to assess potential financial impacts associated with alleged misuse of confidential information. Their analyses may address concepts such as unjust enrichment, avoided development costs, or other valuation methodologies relevant to trade secret claims.
Evidentiary Burden for Early Injunctive Relief
The Federal Circuit’s reversal shows that courts require detailed, evidence-based support for irreparable harm and likely success on the merits. Claims of competitive injury must be backed by specific facts connecting the alleged misuse to imminent, non-speculative harm.
Proof of Reasonable Secrecy Measures
The verdict shows that secrecy depends on actual business practices, not assumptions. Evidence of access controls, confidentiality agreements, and internal handling of sensitive technical information was central to the trial record.
Discovery Timing and Statute-of-Limitations Diligence
Statute-of-limitations issues affected both the preliminary-injunction appeal and the later merits ruling. The case shows that trade secret plaintiffs must act diligently once they have facts suggesting possible access, similarity, or misuse, even if they do not yet have complete internal technical proof.
Presenting Technical Evidence to Factfinders
Complex engineering documentation and manufacturing processes were central to the liability and damages findings. Clear presentation of how technical information derives value from secrecy helped connect the evidence to DTSA requirements.
Damages Exposure in Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims
The $452 million jury award reflected the financial exposure that may follow when trade secret liability is found at trial, although the award was later reduced by the district court and displaced by the Federal Circuit’s 2026 reversal.
Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., Ltd. began as a trade secret dispute involving insulin patch pump design, engineering files, algorithms, CAD materials, and manufacturing information, then moved through emergency injunction proceedings, Federal Circuit review, a jury trial, post-trial motions, and a later appellate reversal. The jury found EOFlow liable under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and awarded Insulet approximately $452 million, after which the district court reduced the monetary award and entered permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed the DTSA judgment, holding that Insulet’s trade secret claim was barred by the statute of limitations. That reversal displaced the DTSA liability judgment, damages award, and permanent injunction entered after trial. The record addressed several core trade secret issues, including reasonable secrecy measures, alleged improper acquisition and use, technical proof of confidential device information, discovery timing, and damages tied to alleged misuse of protected business and engineering materials.
What allegations did Insulet bring against EOFlow?
Insulet alleged that EOFlow and former employees misappropriated confidential insulin patch pump design and manufacturing information. The claims were brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and related laws.
Which courts handled the Insulet v. EOFlow dispute?
The case was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Interim appellate review and later merits review were handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
What happened to the $452 million DTSA jury verdict?
A jury found EOFlow liable under the DTSA and awarded Insulet approximately $452 million in damages. The district court later reduced the monetary award and entered permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed the DTSA judgment, holding that Insulet’s trade secret claim was time-barred.
Why did the Federal Circuit reverse the preliminary injunction?
The Federal Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction because the district court’s analysis did not adequately support emergency relief. The appellate court found problems with the treatment of irreparable harm, trade secret specificity, statute-of-limitations questions, and the public interest. That 2024 ruling addressed interim relief before trial, while the Federal Circuit later reversed the DTSA judgment in 2026 on statute-of-limitations grounds.
What confidential information was at issue in the Insulet v. EOFlow litigation?
The case addressed internal design history files, engineering documentation, algorithms, and manufacturing processes related to insulin patch pump technology. These materials were part of Insulet’s asserted trade secret claims.
Information Security and Trade Secret Protection Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Insulet presented expert testimony from Dr. Gregory Rattray on whether the company used reasonable measures to protect confidential technical information, a required element under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The district court stated that Dr. Rattray testified about Insulet’s internal-security policies, employee nondisclosure agreements, restricted access to trade-secret materials, and other physical and digital security measures. Defendants challenged that evidence through expert testimony from Joseph Steinberg, who criticized Insulet’s security protocols and trade-secret protection practices. The district court treated the conflict in expert testimony as an issue for the jury to resolve.
Trade Secret Misappropriation Expert Witness
Trade secret misappropriation experts are commonly consulted to explain statutory concepts such as improper acquisition, use, or disclosure of confidential information and to assist factfinders in applying those standards to technical evidence. In litigation involving complex design records, engineering documentation, or proprietary processes, these experts may help contextualize how such materials are evaluated under trade secret law.
Medical Device Design and Engineering Expert Witness
Medical device design and engineering expert witnesses are commonly consulted in litigation involving regulated medical technologies to explain device architecture, component functionality, and engineering design principles. In disputes where internal design documentation and technical records are at issue, these experts may assist factfinders in understanding how complex device systems operate and how design features are evaluated.
Economic Damages Expert Witness
Economic damages experts are commonly consulted in trade secret litigation to assess potential financial impacts associated with alleged misuse of confidential information. Their analyses may address concepts such as unjust enrichment, avoided development costs, or other valuation methodologies relevant to trade secret claims.
Evidentiary Burden for Early Injunctive Relief
The Federal Circuit’s reversal shows that courts require detailed, evidence-based support for irreparable harm and likely success on the merits. Claims of competitive injury must be backed by specific facts connecting the alleged misuse to imminent, non-speculative harm.
Proof of Reasonable Secrecy Measures
The verdict shows that secrecy depends on actual business practices, not assumptions. Evidence of access controls, confidentiality agreements, and internal handling of sensitive technical information was central to the trial record.
Discovery Timing and Statute-of-Limitations Diligence
Statute-of-limitations issues affected both the preliminary-injunction appeal and the later merits ruling. The case shows that trade secret plaintiffs must act diligently once they have facts suggesting possible access, similarity, or misuse, even if they do not yet have complete internal technical proof.
Presenting Technical Evidence to Factfinders
Complex engineering documentation and manufacturing processes were central to the liability and damages findings. Clear presentation of how technical information derives value from secrecy helped connect the evidence to DTSA requirements.
Damages Exposure in Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims
The $452 million jury award reflected the financial exposure that may follow when trade secret liability is found at trial, although the award was later reduced by the district court and displaced by the Federal Circuit’s 2026 reversal.
Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., Ltd. began as a trade secret dispute involving insulin patch pump design, engineering files, algorithms, CAD materials, and manufacturing information, then moved through emergency injunction proceedings, Federal Circuit review, a jury trial, post-trial motions, and a later appellate reversal. The jury found EOFlow liable under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and awarded Insulet approximately $452 million, after which the district court reduced the monetary award and entered permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed the DTSA judgment, holding that Insulet’s trade secret claim was barred by the statute of limitations. That reversal displaced the DTSA liability judgment, damages award, and permanent injunction entered after trial. The record addressed several core trade secret issues, including reasonable secrecy measures, alleged improper acquisition and use, technical proof of confidential device information, discovery timing, and damages tied to alleged misuse of protected business and engineering materials.
What allegations did Insulet bring against EOFlow?
Insulet alleged that EOFlow and former employees misappropriated confidential insulin patch pump design and manufacturing information. The claims were brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and related laws.
Which courts handled the Insulet v. EOFlow dispute?
The case was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Interim appellate review and later merits review were handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
What happened to the $452 million DTSA jury verdict?
A jury found EOFlow liable under the DTSA and awarded Insulet approximately $452 million in damages. The district court later reduced the monetary award and entered permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed the DTSA judgment, holding that Insulet’s trade secret claim was time-barred.
Why did the Federal Circuit reverse the preliminary injunction?
The Federal Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction because the district court’s analysis did not adequately support emergency relief. The appellate court found problems with the treatment of irreparable harm, trade secret specificity, statute-of-limitations questions, and the public interest. That 2024 ruling addressed interim relief before trial, while the Federal Circuit later reversed the DTSA judgment in 2026 on statute-of-limitations grounds.
What confidential information was at issue in the Insulet v. EOFlow litigation?
The case addressed internal design history files, engineering documentation, algorithms, and manufacturing processes related to insulin patch pump technology. These materials were part of Insulet’s asserted trade secret claims.
What legal issues did the Insulet v. EOFlow trade secret case address?
The litigation addressed trade secret protection, reasonable secrecy measures, alleged improper acquisition and use of confidential technical information, discovery timing, and damages tied to claimed misuse of insulin patch pump technology. It also addressed how statute-of-limitations defenses can affect both interim injunction proceedings and final judgment after trial.
Defend Trade Secrets Act DTSA
Trade Secret Misappropriation
Theft of Trade Secrets
Information Security
Biomedical Equipment
Pumps
Medical Intellectual Property
Economic Analysis
Medical Devices, +4
Healthcare
Healthcare, +4
Healthcare
What legal issues did the Insulet v. EOFlow trade secret case address?
The litigation addressed trade secret protection, reasonable secrecy measures, alleged improper acquisition and use of confidential technical information, discovery timing, and damages tied to claimed misuse of insulin patch pump technology. It also addressed how statute-of-limitations defenses can affect both interim injunction proceedings and final judgment after trial.