⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over competing systems that train clinicians to inject botulinum toxin and dermal fillers. Truinject developed Kate, a simulated head, syringe, and screen that show needle position, angle, and depth. In 2014, while Truinject was also speaking with Allergan and Merz, Galderma sought exclusive negotiations. Truinject says Galderma pressured it to cancel competitor meetings and sign a ninety-day exclusivity agreement plus confidentiality terms. The talks ended without a deal. Truinject later accused Galderma of using its information to build Holly, a competing trainer, and of damaging Truinject's prospects with Allergan and others. The district court dismissed the tortious-interference claim because the second amended complaint did not plausibly allege a concrete business expectancy or intentional interference. It later entered summary judgment for Galderma on the remaining damages, trade-secret, patent, and trade-dress issues. This appeal asks whether Truinject preserved a different interference theory based on the 2014 pressure campaign, and whether any remedy remains.

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (No. 25-1268) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 2026.