Procedural Posture

Appellant insurer appealed from an order of the Santa Clara County Superior Court (California) granting judgment for declaratory relief and requiring appellant to defend respondent insured in a patent infringement action.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a Compliance Attorney

Overview

Respondent, sued in a patent infringement action for advertising activities, tendered its defense to appellant insurance carrier. Appellant denied coverage; respondent sought and was granted summary adjudication that appellant was obligated to defend plaintiff. Appellant appealed, contending advertising injury offenses listed in respondent’s policy were not broad enough to encompass patent infringement claim. The court reviewed policy definitions, concluding the term “infringement of title” was a reference to any infringement of a legally protected name, appellation, or designation, and patent infringement did not constitute “advertising injury” as that term was defined in respondent’s policy. The court held that “infringement of title,” when read in the context of policy, could not be construed to apply to claims based on infringement of legal ownership rights to property. Since there was no potential for coverage under policy, appellant insurer had no duty to defend against patent infringement lawsuit allegations. Judgment reversed.

Outcome

Judgment reversed because “infringement of title,” when read in context of insurance policy, could not be construed to apply to claims based on infringement of legal ownership rights to property. Since there was no potential for coverage under policy, appellant had no duty to defend against patent infringement lawsuit allegations.