Client Alerts & Insights
Insulet Corp. May Have to Choose Between $452 Million Jury Award or Permanently Blocking Competitor From Utilizing Its Trade Secrets
March 17, 2025
Authored By:
After receiving a jury verdict awarding $452 million in damages against a rival company for misappropriation of trade secrets, the prevailing party, Insulet Corp., may have to choose between portions of the damages award or permanently blocking the rival company from continuing to sell its products based on the stolen technology.
In August 2023, Insulet, a medical device company, sued a rival company, EOFlow, for misappropriation of Insulet’s trade secrets. On December 3, 2024, after a four-week trial in the District of Massachusetts, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Insulet finding that EOFlow misappropriated four of Insulet’s trade secrets in creating its insulin patch pump. The jury awarded Insulet $170 million in compensatory damages and $282 million in exemplary or punitive damages, totaling $452 million.
Shortly after Insulet’s victory, Insulet filed a motion to permanently stop EOFlow from selling the insulin patch pump that it created based on Insulet’s proprietary technology. EOFlow challenged Insulet’s request arguing that, if granted, the injunction would overlap with the damages awarded by the jury which, in part, compensate Insulet for EOFlow’s future profits from its insulin patch product.
Recognizing that a company should not be able to continue to use and profit from stolen trade secrets, Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV concluded that some type of injunction would be required. Judge Saylor also concluded that Insulet could not receive both an injunction and keep the full jury award since the relief would overlap. Instead, Judge Saylor suggested Insulet choose whether it wants injunctive relief or the portion of the jury award that captures “unrealized value” from the trade secrets. With Judge Saylor’s proposal as one option, he directed the parties to file new briefs with proposals on how to reconcile the competing interests.
The outcome of Insulet and EOFlow’s post-trial remedy dispute could impact the interplay between monetary and injunctive relief in ongoing and future trade secret actions. Benesch attorneys will be watching the outcome of this dispute closely. If you have any questions, please reach out to:
Katie Burnett at kburnett@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6357.
Samantha Marchand at smarchand@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4938.
Latest News
UPDATED: The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.
Tariff Refund Litigation: A Primer on Common Plaintiff’s Theories of Recovery and Importer of Record Defenses
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump did not have constitutional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump Administration responded quickly, implementing a universal 10 percent surcharge under the authority of Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act.
Supreme Court 2025: Key Free Speech Rulings
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions signaled a more regulator-friendly view of the internet—upholding laws on age verification and foreign-owned platforms under intermediate scrutiny, even where speech is burdened. These cases reaffirm that content-neutral rules that incidentally affect speech are likely to survive constitutional challenge.
Nobody—Not Even Einstein—Has Figured Out What Causes Gravity, but You Need to if You Are Facing a Putative Consumer Class Action in the 9th Circuit
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.