-
Federal Circuit Holds Pleading‑Level Knowledge Triggers DTSA Statute Of Limitations
06/30/2026On May 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a judgment for plaintiff on trade secret misappropriation claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) holding that plaintiff’s claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had expired before the lawsuit was filed. Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co., No. 2025-1807, 2026 WL 1502238 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026).
Plaintiff alleged that defendants misappropriated multiple trade secrets in developing a competing insulin patch pump. After trial, the jury found misappropriation, rejected the statute‑of‑limitations defense, and awarded damages to plaintiff. The district court denied defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”). On appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded that defendants were entitled to JMOL because the undisputed evidence showed that the statute of limitations had expired before plaintiff brought suit and that the jury’s verdict to the contrary was unsupported by substantial evidence.
On appeal, the parties disputed the governing accrual standard under the DTSA. Defendants urged an “inquiry‑notice” standard, under which the limitations period begins when a reasonable plaintiff would have been prompted to investigate a possible injury. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the “discovery” rule applies, under which the clock begins when plaintiff actually discovered or should have discovered the facts constituting the claim.
The Federal Circuit declined to decide between these competing standards. Instead, the Court framed the key inquiry as whether plaintiff knew or should have known facts sufficient to state a claim for trade secret misappropriation before the critical date. The Court emphasized that this inquiry does not require full evidentiary detail or proof of every element, but rather knowledge adequate to plead a viable claim.
To determine when plaintiff possessed sufficient knowledge, the Federal Circuit applied an access‑plus‑similarity framework. Under this approach, a plaintiff may plead misappropriation through circumstantial evidence showing:
(1) defendant’s access to the trade secrets; and
(2) substantial similarity between the asserted trade secrets and the accused product.
Applying the framework, the Court concluded that the statute of limitations began to run once plaintiff had (or should have had) knowledge of both elements.
With respect to the first element, the record showed that plaintiff knew several former employees, who had detailed knowledge of the relevant technology, were working with defendants on the competing product. The Court held that this knowledge was sufficient to establish awareness of access as a matter of law. With respect to the second element, the Court pointed to evidence that, years before filing suit, plaintiff internally recognized that the accused product closely resembled its own. For example, internal communications described the competitor’s product as having “cloned” plaintiff’s design and “looks almost identical.” The Court rejected arguments that additional technical detail (e.g., precise measurements or manufacturing processes) was required to trigger accrual, explaining that such specifics are unnecessary where access and substantial similarity are already known.
The Federal Circuit further held that the alleged misappropriation of multiple trade secrets was subject to a single statute‑of‑limitations analysis where the claims arose from the same course of conduct. Relying on the DTSA’s provision that a “continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim,” the Court concluded that the first discovered (or discoverable) misappropriation triggers the limitations period for all related trade secrets disclosed as part of the same relationship and timeframe.
Because, here, the asserted trade secrets were disclosed by the same individual, during the same period, and for the same purpose (developing the competing product), they constituted a single claim for accrual purposes. As a result, once plaintiff knew or should have known of the initial misappropriation, the statute began to run on all related trade secret claims—even those involving different aspects of the technology.
IP Litigation