Client Alerts & Insights
Update: Insulet Corp.’s Trade Secrets Jury Award Reduced From $452 Million to $59.4 Million to Avoid Double Recovery
June 3, 2025
Authored By:
Following a recent trend to reduce large damages awards in trade secret misappropriation cases, a federal judge in Massachusetts cut Insulet Corp.’s damages award from $452 million to $59.4 million to avoid impermissible double recovery and comply with the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”).
In August 2023, Insulet, a medical device company, sued a rival company, EOFlow, for misappropriation of Insulet’s trade secrets. On Dember 3, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Insulet finding that EOFlow misappropriated four of Insulet’s trade secrets, three of which were willfully and maliciously misappropriated, in creating its insulin patch pump. The jury awarded Insulet $170 million in unjust-enrichment damages and $282 million in exemplary, or punitive, damages, totaling $452 million. Details of this decision may be found here.
After the jury verdict, and in addition to its damages award, Insulet filed a motion to permanently block EOFlow from continuing to sell its products based on the stolen technology. EOFlow argued that Insulet’s permanent injunction should not be granted as it would constitute impermissible double recovery since the damages award, in part, compensates Insulet for EOFlow’s future profits from the insulin patch product. Chief U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor IV agreed with EOFlow finding that the damages award calculation was based in substantial part on EOFlow’s future, unrealized profits, and an injunction prevents continued selling and future profits. Consequently, allowing both an injunction and the full damages award would constitute an impermissible double recovery.
A district court has the authority to fashion an award to avoid duplicative recovery, and the court allowed Insulet to elect its remedy. In a supplemental post-trial memorandum, Insulet elected for a permanent injunction and a damages award that is not duplicative of the injunction. The court concluded that at least a portion of the avoided costs and exemplary damages award is not duplicative, and therefore, it could award a portion of the damages and grant the permanent injunction. Thus, the court reduced the damages award from $452 million to $59.4 million, inclusive of unjust-enrichment damages and exemplary damages. The court concluded that $25.8 million in unjust-enrichment damages could be awarded as it represented the costs EOFlow avoided in developing the stolen technology itself.
As for the exemplary damages, the court pointed out that punitive damages must be reduced to comply with the DTSA which states, “a court may . . . if the trade secret is willfully and maliciously misappropriated, award exemplary damages in an amount not more than 2 times the amount of the [unjust-enrichment] damages awarded.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(a)(3). Accordingly, an award of exemplary damages under the DTSA may not exceed two times the unjust-enrichment damages ultimately entered for the plaintiff—not the unjust enrichment determined (but not ultimately awarded) by the jury. The court, therefore, reduced the exemplary damages award to $33.6 million.
The reduction of large trade secrets awards, similar to Insulet’s case, is a recent trend in trade secrets cases. Benesch attorneys are paying attention to these recent developments and the interplay between monetary and injunctive relief in these actions. 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.