|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
A high-stakes legal battle between South Carolina’s largest hospital system and a medical software company is raising serious questions about intellectual property, competition and patient safety.
According to a federal lawsuit (.pdf) filed in Greenville, S.C., healthcare technology company Glytec LLC accused Prisma Health of illegally reverse engineering its proprietary insulin-management software after deciding it no longer wanted to pay approximately $1 million in annual licensing fees.
The allegations center on Glucommander, an FDA-cleared glucose management platform used by hospitals to calculate insulin dosing for patients whose blood sugar levels must be closely monitored and adjusted.
Glytec claims Prisma spent years licensing the software prior to embarking on an effort to create its own competing product — one the company alleges was built by studying, testing and replicating Glucommander’s proprietary algorithms in violation of contractual restrictions.
Prisma has denied the allegations.
The litigation has already survived an early dismissal challenge – and prompted a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction restricting Prisma from sharing or marketing its internally developed software while the case proceeds.
***
TRADE SECRETS OR COMPETITIVE DEVELOPMENT?
At the center of the dispute is whether the information Prisma allegedly used to build its own software qualified as protected trade secrets.
Glytec says it spent nearly two decades and more than $60 million developing Glucommander – and refining proprietary algorithms that dynamically adjust insulin dosing based on numerous patient-specific factors. The company maintains those algorithms are closely guarded, confidential and represent the core value of its product.
Court filings described proprietary features that allegedly went beyond publicly available insulin protocols, including methods for adjusting insulin sensitivity calculations and managing patients experiencing severe hyperglycemic crises.
Glytec alleged Prisma ultimately incorporated portions of those protected concepts into its own software after using Glytec’s testing environment to run simulations and compare results.
Prisma has challenged those claims and sought dismissal of the trade secrets counts – arguing, among other things, that Glytec failed to adequately identify protected trade secrets.
Federal judge Donald C. Coggins Jr. rejected the dismissal request earlier this year, finding Glytec’s allegations were sufficient to proceed at the pleading stage.
***
PATIENT SAFETY CONCERNS EMERGE
***
While the intellectual property fight has drawn significant attention, the litigation also contains allegations regarding patient safety.
Glytec contends Prisma’s replacement software was not FDA-cleared and lacked some of the safeguards incorporated into Glucommander. According to the complaint, Prisma employees themselves raised concerns about the absence of certain features before the software was deployed.
Those allegations remain disputed. However, in a March 2026 order (.pdf) denying Prisma’s motion to dismiss, Coggins noted the allegations raised concerns extending far beyond a private commercial dispute.
The court wrote that allegations involving a hospital system testing insulin-management software in another company’s testing environment without authorization or FDA approval could “plausibly implicate the public interest” because the conduct could affect patient safety and potentially recur.
That language stopped short of making any factual findings, but it signaled the court’s view that the allegations – if proven – raise broader public health concerns.
***
THE “ROADSHOW” THAT TRIGGERED AN INJUNCTION
The most immediate legal victory for Glytec came last summer. After reviewing discovery materials, Glytec claimed Prisma employees were discussing presentations to other hospitals and industry groups regarding the internally developed software. Court filings referenced discussions of taking the product on a “roadshow” and presenting it at industry conferences.
Glytec argued that any broader dissemination could further expose or distribute information allegedly derived from its trade secrets.
In June 2025, Coggins granted portions of Glytec’s request for a preliminary injunction (.pdf). His order prohibited Prisma from marketing, licensing, promoting, selling or otherwise disseminating the software outside the limited scope necessary for patient care while the litigation continues. The injunction also required Prisma to preserve software versions and relevant communications and to identify parties with whom the software or underlying information may have been shared.
Notably, the court declined to prohibit Prisma from continuing to use the software for treatment of patients within its own health system, finding that patient-care considerations weighed against such a restriction.
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Glytec is seeking damages it estimates will exceed $10 million, along with permanent injunctive relief and other remedies. Prisma continues to deny wrongdoing and has challenged both the trade secret allegations and the scope of the injunction.
For now, the central question remains unresolved: did Prisma independently develop a replacement for a software platform it had licensed for years? Or did it cross the line into reverse engineering and trade secret misappropriation?
The answer could have significant consequences not only for the parties involved, but for how hospitals, software vendors and healthcare systems navigate the increasingly valuable intersection of technology, intellectual property and patient care.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
