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
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.
Canada Trade – New Tariff Announcement and USMCA Non-Renewable Stakes for North American Supply Chains
On July 20, 2026, the Trump Administration announced a new set of sweeping tariffs on Canadian goods. This comes less than one month after the United States decided against renewing the free trade agreement between the United States of America, Mexico, and Canada (the “USMCA”) during the required six-year joint review.