Trade secret cases can be difficult to navigate due to the inherent conflict between the open court principle and the necessity of keeping trade secrets private. While plaintiffs are unwilling to divulge the particulars of their valuable intellectual property, denying defendants access to information can put them at an unfair disadvantage when defending against allegations.

Our firm authored an article in The Legal Intelligencer exploring a recent case which underscores the need for a balanced approach in trade secret litigation. Insulet and EOFlow, two medical manufacturers that make insulin pump patches, became involved in a dispute after Medtronic started a diligence process to acquire EOFlow, which had hired four former Insulet employees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction granted by a district court, noting that the district court used an overbroad definition of the term “trade secret” and overlooked whether the secret in question could have been ascertained through publicly disclosed information. It also held that irreparable harm cannot be grounded simply on “a party’s unsubstantiated fears of what the future may have in store.”

This decision makes clear that plaintiffs must be willing to provide enough information about trade secrets to effectively litigate a case while also protecting the company’s best interests. The Federal Circuit’s Insulet decision will be a significant guide for similar cases going forward.

Read the full article here: ‘Insulet v. EOFlow’: Revisiting Standard for Preliminary Injunctions in Trade Secret Misappropriation Cases (Subscription is required.)