Truinject v. Galderma — Unpreserved Damages Theories Cannot Save Trade-Secret Claims

Background

Truinject developed “Kate,” a proposed training system that combined a lifelike injectable mannequin head with a sensor-equipped syringe to help aestheticians practice dermal injections. In 2014 it entered exclusive-negotiation and confidentiality agreements with Galderma, a seller of dermal injectables, and canceled a planned meeting with Galderma rival Allergan. The Galderma talks ended without a deal, and Allergan later declined to partner with Truinject.

Truinject sued Galderma and related defendants, asserting patent infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference, and trade-secret misappropriation. The patent claims were no longer at issue on appeal. The remaining dispute centered on allegations that Galderma disclosed or misused confidential information and thereby cost Truinject a potential Allergan transaction said to be worth as much as $100 million. The Delaware district court dismissed the interference claim and granted summary judgment against Truinject on damages and the contract and trade-secret claims.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion. On tortious interference, the panel held that Truinject had forfeited the theory it advanced on appeal. The complaint had focused on alleged disparagement and a supposed disinformation campaign. On appeal, Truinject instead characterized the interference as Galderma’s inducing it to enter the exclusivity agreement and cancel the Allergan meeting. Because the district court dismissed the claim without prejudice and invited an amended pleading, Truinject had a clear opportunity to present that different theory but did not do so.

The damages ruling independently disposed of the contract and trade-secret claims. Truinject’s theory below tied its loss to the canceled November 2014 Allergan meeting, while the alleged Galderma breaches began in December. Those later events could not have caused the earlier cancellation, and Allergan was unaware of the alleged breaches when it later declined a deal.

Truinject tried on appeal to recast the possible Allergan deal as evidence of Kate’s market value and to request rescissory damages. The panel treated both positions as forfeited because they were not adequately presented at summary judgment. Truinject had admitted that it offered no damages calculation apart from the lost-Allergan-deal theory. With no viable damages claim and no other relief requested, the contract and trade-secret claims could not produce a remedy.

Key Takeaways

• A party cannot replace its pleaded interference theory with a materially different theory for the first time on appeal, especially after declining leave to amend.
• Trade-secret and contract plaintiffs must connect the alleged misuse to a concrete loss; chronology alone may defeat causation when the claimed loss predates the alleged breach.
• A few passing statements at summary judgment do not preserve a distinct damages model without supporting evidence and a clear explanation.
• Admissions in interrogatory responses can foreclose later attempts to recharacterize the measure of damages.

Why It Matters

Trade-secret disputes often involve promising negotiations that never became binding deals. This decision shows why a large potential transaction is not itself proof that later misuse caused the deal to fail. Plaintiffs need evidence linking the defendant’s specific conduct to the buyer’s decision and must present each damages theory clearly in the trial court.

The ruling also highlights the cost of procedural drift. A case may begin with several overlapping IP and business theories, but each theory must remain consistent across the complaint, discovery, summary judgment, and appeal. Reframing the same facts after an adverse judgment will not preserve a claim that was never squarely litigated below.