Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

Trade secrets are becoming an increasingly important form of intellectual property for U.S. companies. In 2025, trade secret filings reached an all-time high, with plaintiffs filing a record 1,552 federal cases—a 20% jump from 2024 and the highest total since the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was enacted in 2016.

contentpilot/introduction

But filing a claim is only half the battle. A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates what can happen when a plaintiff learns of reasons to suspect misappropriation but sits on its rights too long.

core/paragraph

In Insulet v. EOFlow, No. 2025-1807 (May 28, 2026), both parties were medical device manufacturers. Plaintiff Insulet developed an adhesive, wearable insulin patch pump. It later learned that some of its former employees had joined competitor EOFlow, where they allegedly used Insulet’s trade secrets to develop a competing device. Insulet sued EOFlow for misappropriation under the DTSA.

The trial court denied summary judgment for both parties, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Insulet and awarded nearly half a billion dollars in damages. Following entry of judgment, however, EOFlow appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed in an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judge Reyna with Judge Prost dissenting. The majority found that Insulet had waited too long to assert its claim, such that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The DTSA imposes a three-year statute of limitations that begins to run when the plaintiff first knew or should have known of the misappropriation. Once a trade secret owner has that knowledge—actual or constructive—it has three years to file suit.

More than three years before filing, Insulet employees attended a trade show where they saw and photographed the competing product that EOFlow was publicly displaying. Afterwards, those employees exchanged emails expressing concern that EOFlow had copied Insulet’s device and stolen its intellectual property. As a result, Insulet began an investigation through which it either knew or should have known that its trade secrets had been misappropriated.

The Federal Circuit individually analyzed each of Insulet’s four asserted trade secrets, finding the requisite knowledge as to each one. At the same time, the court reasoned that knowledge of misappropriation as to any one of the four would start the statute of limitations as to all of them, because the trade secrets were all related.

The outcome was stark: Insulet had victory snatched from its hands and recovered no damages.

core/heading

The Insulet decision is a cautionary tale for any company that suspects a competitor may have stolen its proprietary information. The statute of limitations clock starts ticking earlier than many plaintiffs realize—not when you have conclusive proof, but when you have reason to suspect wrongdoing.

If you believe a competitor has misappropriated your trade secrets, consult with legal counsel early, preferably soon after the first signs of potential theft emerge. Prompt action preserves your ability to seek relief, while delay, even if spent investigating, can permanently foreclose your claims.

https://admin.thompsonhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Thompson-Hine-Newsletter-Business-Law-Update-July-2026.pdf

core/file

This article may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgement of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.

This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.

Don’t Wait Too Long to Assert Your Trade Secret Claims – It Could Cost You Your Case

Services