The ruling turns on the discovery rule, which starts the limitations clock when a plaintiff reasonably should have discovered the harm. Alarm.com argued SkyBell should have investigated sooner through independent diligence like reverse engineering its products. The court found this argument failed because the contract itself barred such investigation. Until the DIA ended, SkyBell had no contractual right to examine Alarm.com's competing products and therefore no reasonable opportunity to detect misappropriation.
The decision provides useful guidance for technology companies in trade secret disputes. Contractual restrictions on investigation—particularly reverse engineering bans—can defeat statute of limitations defenses at the motion-to-dismiss stage, shifting the burden to defendants to prove actual discovery rather than constructive notice. Plaintiffs in similar situations should document the contractual barriers that prevented earlier investigation. Defendants relying on limitations arguments should expect courts to scrutinize whether plaintiffs had genuine access to information before claiming they should have known sooner.