Colorado District Court's Faulty Analysis of Potential Coverage for Katz Telehpone System Patents Ignored Pertinent Advertising-Based Allegations in Finding that No Defense Was Due

Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:09-cv-00447-JLK-MEH (D.Colo. Aug. 19, 2010) [No Westlaw/Lexis Order]

In another case analyzing whether the series of patent rights asserted by Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. may fall within advertising injury coverage, a district court in Colorado concluded they did not.

Continue Reading...

Hyundai Motor Am. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 600 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 2010)

In 2005, Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) was sued for patent infringement by Orion IP, LLC (“Orion”) based on allegations that Hyundai’s website used Orion’s patented methods of generating customized product proposals.

Specifically, Orion alleged that Hyundai’s website used a “build your own vehicle” (“BYO”) feature and a parts catalogue feature. Hyundai sought a defense from its insurers, asserting that Orion’s claims constituted allegations of “misappropriation of advertising ideas,” which was covered under the standard “advertising injury” provisions of their policies. The insurers refused to defend Hyundai.

Continue Reading...

Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. EEE Business, Inc., No. C 09-01888 JSW, 2009 WL 3809817 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009)

Addressing the right of Microsoft as judgment creditor to establish coverage under the policy of its insured pursuant to California Insurance Code § 11580(d)(2), the court found that the coverage was not properly established.

As a third party judgment creditor, Microsoft has the burden to establish that Hartford owed the EEE Defendants a duty to indemnify, not merely to defend. See Cal. Ins.Code § 11580(b)(2). As a non-insured, Microsoft has no standing to raise the duty to defend. . . . In addition, as a third party creditor, Microsoft is subject to the same coverage defenses available against the insured. See Cal. Ins.Code § 11580(2).

Id. at *5.

Continue Reading...

Kreuger Int'l, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2009 WL 2596507 (E.D. Wis. 2009)

Following an earlier ruling that there was no duty to defend vis-à-vis Federal Insurance, the same result was attained by St. Paul. The court left open for additional factual development and proceedings St. Paul’s motion for reimbursement of defense fees paid.

The policies are St. Paul and Federal Ins. Co. variants of a 2001 ISO with express intellectual property exclusions. Pertinent coverage in the St. Paul policy was for advertising injury, the advertising injury offense of “unauthorized taking or use of any advertising idea, material, slogan, style or title of others and under Federal’s policy, advertising injury, which required injury solely out of . . . one . . . of the following offenses committed in the course of advertising your goods, products or services. Infringement of copyrighted advertising materials or infringement of trademark or service mark, titles or slogans. Each policy defined the term “advertisement.” St. Paul far more broadly than did Federal.

Continue Reading...

Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Allied Int'l Emerg., LLC No. 4:08-CV-678-Y, 2009 WL 2030421 (N.D. Tex. July 14, 2009)

Applying Texas law, none of the operative offenses were within the policy. Claims for copyright, trade dress or slogan were implicated, but not asserted. And that the offense arising out of the insured’s business must in turn cause personal or advertising injury. The term “arising out of” requires proof of “but-for causation”. Utica Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Am. Indem. Co., 141 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex.2004). Where there was no

Continue Reading...

Acacia Research Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. SACV 05-501 PSG (MLGx), 2008 WL 4179206 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the scope of a Directors & Officers policy’s duty to cover reimbursement of defense fees and settlement costs in a patent infringement lawsuit. The court found for the insured.

It awarded plaintiff $31,070,981.62 plus

Continue Reading...

IPO Owners As Plaintiffs

How to Get an Insurer to Pursue Patent Infringers with Attorneys You Choose at Its Expense – The Advent of Patent Pursuit Policies

As the cost of patent infringement litigation escalates, the average case will require more than $1,000,000 to pursue through trial according to a 1999 AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association) survey. Many patent holders have been successful in procuring damages, principally via reasonable royalty awards, that make such lawsuits financially worthwhile. Lawsuits that do settle between major corporations are typically resolved through cross-licensing of patents possessed by each corporation. The net effect of these cases is to generate new marketing alliances.

For companies that do not have a significant patent portfolio that they can exchange with a competitor to resolve infringement disputes, the inability to afford costly patent litigation may mean the abandonment of a key market advantage, central to the company’s strategy. For such companies, the ability to afford patent infringement is a matter of economic survival.

Some years ago, creative patent attorneys appreciated the insurance industry seeking solutions to this issue. Persuaded that an advance of monies to fund such lawsuits could often be paid back from the proceeds realized through successful litigation, some select insurers began underwriting a new form of insurance – pursuit coverage that placed insurers and companies with patent rights into partnership in their efforts to realize the full benefit of the patents the companies had procured.
Continue Reading...