Background
Truinject developed “Kate,” a proposed training system for dermal injections involving a lifelike mannequin head and a fiber-optic syringe capable of tracking needle depth, angle, and position. In 2014, Truinject entered an exclusive-negotiation agreement and a confidentiality agreement with Galderma while canceling a scheduled meeting with Allergan. The parties’ discussions ended without a deal, and Allergan later declined to partner with Truinject.
Truinject sued Galderma and related defendants, asserting patent infringement, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, breach of contract, and trade-secret misappropriation. The District of Delaware dismissed the tortious-interference claim and later entered summary judgment against Truinject on the remaining relevant claims. Truinject’s only developed damages theory was that Galderma’s alleged wrongdoing caused it to lose a potential Allergan transaction, including a claimed opportunity for a $100 million upfront payment.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion. It held that Truinject forfeited its appellate theory that Galderma intentionally interfered with the prospective Allergan relationship by inducing Truinject to enter the exclusivity agreement without intending to honor it. In the district court, Truinject had instead based the intentional-interference element on Galderma’s alleged post-agreement disparagement and dealings with other industry participants. Truinject also declined an opportunity to amend its complaint after dismissal.
The court likewise held that Truinject forfeited its new damages theories. Below, Truinject tied its damages to the canceled November 2014 Allergan meeting, but Galderma’s alleged breaches did not begin until December 2014. On appeal, Truinject reframed the proposed Allergan deal as a measure of Kate’s diminished market value and also sought rescissory damages, neither of which it had adequately presented to the district court. Because Truinject did not challenge the district court’s causation ruling, its finding that Allergan lacked knowledge of the alleged breaches, or the rejection of nominal damages, no viable damages claim remained. That conclusion required affirmance on both the contract and trade-secret claims without reaching the district court’s other grounds.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate argument is forfeited when the party did not present it clearly enough to give the trial court an opportunity to decide it.
- Passing references to diminished value did not preserve a theory that a proposed transaction served as a proxy for the technology’s market value.
- Because Truinject sought only damages and had no viable damages theory, the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment on the contract and trade-secret claims without deciding whether a breach or misappropriation occurred.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a party generally cannot rescue unsuccessful claims on appeal by changing the theory underlying an element of liability or damages. The theory and supporting evidence must be squarely presented in the trial court, especially when opposing dismissal or summary judgment.
It also illustrates how a failure to preserve or challenge a dispositive damages ruling can resolve an appeal without appellate review of alternative merits grounds. Here, the absence of an available damages remedy was sufficient to sustain judgment for Galderma.