Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd.

Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd. The Federal Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction because the nominally without-prejudice dismissal of Insulet's patent claims functioned at least in part as a dismissal with prejudice once limitations had run on alleged 2018 infringement. On the merits, the court held EOFlow was entitled to JMOL because Insulet knew or should have known facts sufficient to plead DTSA misappropriation more than three years before filing suit. The decision is a precedential reminder that dismissed patent claims can preserve Federal Circuit jurisdiction when time-barred acts make the dismissal functionally with prejudice, and it applies a rigorous accrual analysis to trade-secret claims tied to access-plus-similarity evidence. Reversed the district court's judgment; costs awarded to EOFlow. Jurisdiction: although the patent claims were dismissed "without prejudice," alleged June 2018 infringement was time-barred by the time of dismissal, so the dismissal altered the parties' legal positions and supported Federal Circuit jurisdiction. DTSA limitations: the court did not choose between inquiry notice and the Merck discovery standard, holding that Insulet's claim was untimely even under the more demanding discovery-rule formulation. Pleading/accrual framework: the majority held that knowledge of a former employee's access to trade secrets plus similarity between the accused product and the asserted trade secrets can be sufficient to plead misappropriation and start the limitations clock. Single-claim treatment: because the alleged disclosures were part of the same course of conduct by the same former employee for the same purpose, the court treated the asserted trade secrets as subject to the same limitations analysis. Dissent: Judge Prost agreed on jurisdiction but would have upheld the jury's limitations findings, criticizing the majority for effectively applying inquiry notice and reweighing trial evidence. standing / jurisdiction infringement damages injunction / stay precedential standing / jurisdiction infringement damages injunction / stay precedential standing / jurisdiction damages injunction / stay precedential infringement