Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 2025-1807 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026)

In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit considered a trade secrets case in a 47-page decision, including an extensive dissent by Judge Prost.  But before the Court could reach the trade secrets issues (focusing on the statute of limitations, which we do not cover here given the subject matter), it had to consider whether it had jurisdiction over the case.  That turned on an issue of patent law, which we cover below.

Insulet sued EOFlow for misappropriation of trade secrets and patent infringement concerning developments relating to insulin patch pumps.  The district court bifurcated the trade secret claims and the patent claims.  At a jury trial on the trade secrets claims, the jury awarded Insulet $452 million in damages.  Insulet thereafter amended its complaint to delete the patent claims, and the district court dismissed Insulet’s patent claims “without prejudice.”  EOFlow then appealed to the Federal Circuit, whereas Insulet appealed certain issues to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and moved to transfer the Federal Circuit case to the First Circuit.  Insulet took the position that, the patent claims having been dismissed from the case, the Federal Circuit did not have jurisdiction.  The Federal Circuit denied the transfer motion and asked the parties to brief the Court’s jurisdiction as part of their appeal briefs.The Court held that it had jurisdiction because patent claims had been asserted in the case.  Normally, an amendment to a complaint that dismisses patent claims without prejudice will divest the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction over the appeal.  However, a dismissal nominally without prejudice may be a dismissal with prejudice where the statute of limitations had run.  Here, Insulet had asserted patent infringement concerning acts that took place in 2018.  By the time the patent claims were dismissed “without prejudice” in 2025, the six year statute of limitations had run, so the dismissal was with prejudice.  Insulet argued that the patent suit does not have a statute of limitations—only a bar of recovery.  The Federal Circuit held that this was “a distinction without a difference” for present purposes.

Insulet also argued that EOFlow engaged in further acts of infringement in 2022.  But the Federal Circuit found that these acts of infringement had not been alleged in the lawsuit.  The only act of infringement alleged in the lawsuit was a 2018 act of infringement, and that that act was barred by the statute of limitations, thus rendering the dismissal “with prejudice” with respect to the pleaded acts.

Because the district court dismissed the patent claims with prejudice, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.

For those curious, the Federal Circuit reversed the jury verdict and found that the statute of limitations had run, wiping out the $452 million trade secret damages claim.  Judge Prost dissented on that issue.

The opinion can be found here.

By Nika Aldrich