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.
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.
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.
Key Takeaways
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.
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.
© 2026 THOMPSON HINE LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.