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
Key Considerations for Businesses facing Defamation Issues: Strategies for Protecting Your Reputation and Brand
Defamation risk for businesses has never been higher. Even five years ago, unfavorable press could be expected to fade from …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court Offers Further Direction on Default Interest and Fee Recovery
The SDNY Bankruptcy Court’s written decision in 1300 Desert Willow builds on the framework established in Mako, providing additional guidance on when a debtor can overcome the presumption that an oversecured creditor is entitled to post-petition default interest at the contractual rate.
Managing Risk When Terminating Vendor Relationships
Terminating a vendor relationship is not as simple as stopping performance. Companies should carefully follow the contract’s termination provisions, including notice requirements, cure periods and other procedural obligations. Failure to do so can create breach-of-contract claims even when vendor performance issues exist.
Is Your PFAS Coverage at Risk? An Ohio Federal Court Ruling Opens the Door to Broader Insurer Denials
The federal holding in Fire-Dex, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., the first of its kind, could reshape how insurers respond to PFAS-related coverage demands. Fire-Dex, a manufacturer of firefighter turnout gear, was sued by firefighters who alleged that exposure to PFAS from the gear caused cancer.