This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in a trade secret case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this case, the majority found the statute of limitations expired. Notably, Judge Prost dissented, taking the position that the panel should not have reversed the jury’s conclusion “that none of the misappropriated trade secrets were time-barred.” The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. (Precedential)
Insulet Corporation (“Insulet”) sued EOFlow, Co. Ltd., EOFlow, Inc., and its chief executive officer and major stockholder Jesse Kim (collectively, “EOFlow” unless otherwise noted) for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and for patent infringement. The district court bifurcated Insulet’s trade secret misappropriation claim from the patent claims.
EOFlow argued that the statute of limitations had expired for Insulet’s trade secret misappropriation claim. The district court denied both parties’ summary judgment motions on the limitations issue. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the DTSA claim. The jury found that EOFlow misappropriated four Insulet trade secrets and that Insulet’s claim was not time-barred for any of the misappropriated trade secrets and awarded damages. The district court denied EOFlow’s posttrial judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) motion; entered judgment awarding Insulet damages; held both EOFlow entities and Mr. Kim jointly and severally liable for the damages; and issued a permanent injunction. After trial, the patent claims were dismissed without prejudice. EOFlow appeals.
We conclude that we have jurisdiction because the patent claims were effectively dismissed with prejudice. On the merits, we determine that EOFlow was entitled to JMOL on Insulet’s DTSA claim because the statute of limitations had expired before Insulet brought suit. We reverse.
Prost, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
After a five-week trial in which over twenty witnesses testified and more than 300 exhibits were admitted into evidence, the jury found that none of the misappropriated trade secrets were time-barred. Yet, the majority overturns the jury’s verdict based on legal theories that EOFlow neither presses nor develops. The majority errs in four main ways: (1) it conflates its application of the discovery rule with the inquiry-notice standard, (2) it adopts a framework not supported by the case law, (3) it encourages plaintiffs to race to the courthouse with undeveloped claims based on mere suspicion, and (4) it improperly substitutes our own fact findings for those of the jury. I respectfully dissent.
GO1 Pty, Ltd. v. OpenSesame, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
GO1 Pty, Ltd. appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining that Go1 did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,784,113 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand the Board’s final written decision.