Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A.

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Truinject forfeited the appellate theories it relied on to challenge dismissal of tortious interference and summary judgment of no damages. With damages off the table, Truinject had no viable appellate path to relief on its contract or trade-secret claims. The decision is a preservation warning: reframing a damages theory or interference theory on appeal will not rescue claims lost at dismissal or summary judgment. Affirmed. The appeal did not present patent merits issues; the Federal Circuit applied Third Circuit law to the non-patent issues and exercised jurisdiction because patent claims had been raised and adjudicated below. On tortious interference, Truinject argued on appeal that Galderma induced it into an exclusivity agreement to force cancellation of Allergan meetings, but the court held that theory was not meaningfully presented to the district court. On damages, Truinject’s district-court theory tied its alleged loss to a missed Allergan opportunity, but on appeal it recast the Allergan evidence as a market-value proxy; the Federal Circuit held that theory was forfeited. The court also treated Truinject’s rescissory-damages argument as forfeited because it changed the substance of the damages theory pressed below. Because Truinject sought only damages and had not preserved a viable damages theory, the court affirmed judgment for Galderma without reaching additional district-court grounds on contract breach or trade-secret misappropriation. damages waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction non-precedential damages waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction non-precedential damages waiver / forfeiture non-precedential