Maryland’s High Court Ignores Policy Language

Unjust Enrichment Claims Based on “Use of Another’s Advertising Idea” Were Not used in Insured’s ‘Advertisement’ ” In Maryland Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Int’l Ltd., No. 51, September Term, 2014, 2015 Md. LEXIS 286 (Md. Apr. 21, 2015), the Maryland Court of Appeals failed to address the salient policy language concluding that no potential coverage arose for “unjust…

Coverage for Implicit Disparagement Is Not Limited to Claims “Of and Concerning” the Claimant

The Northern District of California sided with California Court of Appeals case Charlotte Russe over conflicting appellate cases Total Call and Swift, finding potential coverage without requirement that the disparaging statement specifically refer to the goods, products, or services of the claimant. Recently, the Northern District of California weighed in on the divergent opinions of the…

California Supreme Court Review of Insurance Case on Implied Disparagement Presents Opportunities for Coverage in Intellectual Property Litigation

In 2012 two published decisions from the California Court of Appeals and one unpublished decision from the Ninth Circuit shed new light on the contours of implicit disparagement coverage under California law. The first such Court of Appeals decision, Charlotte Russe, clarified and reasserted the broad scope of implied disparagement coverage, a position the second…

A Trifecta of Insurance Coverage Cases Addressing Implicit Disparagement Reveal Coverage Opportunities In Intellectual Property Litigation

  Three recent decisions, two published from the California Court of Appeals, and one unpublished from the Ninth Circuit, address the boundaries of coverage for implicit disparagement claims under California law emphasizing both the limitations and opportunities for such claims.   For intellectual property practitioners, these cases highlight why a number of typically asserted IP…

Buried Treasure – Part Three

DO “BURIED TREASURES” EXIST?  Part Three of a Three Part Series Ascertaining Whether Buried Treasure Exists Requires a Five-Part Analysis These issues include: 1.       Did the company give notice to the insurers on risk as of the date of the first alleged “wrongful act” as well as all subsequent carriers and those at higher levels…

Buried Treasure – Part Two

WHY LOOK FOR “BURIED TREASURE”? Part Two of a Three Part Series Intellectual Property Lawsuits Are Expensive It is not uncommon, pursuant to AIPLA surveys for companies to expend $500,000 to $1,000,000 for defense of trademark and copyright infringement lawsuits.  More than five times that sum may be expended for patent infringement lawsuits.  Where insurer…

“Buried Treasure” – Part One

“BURIED TREASURE” – SECURING REIMBURSEMENT FOR MONIES EXPENDED IN PAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWSUITS  Part One of a Three-Part Series Introduction Companies looking for extra money in these tough economic times may have an answer from the past.  The vast majority of insurer denial letters for intellectual property lawsuits lack merit.  Therefore, companies who have litigated…

Media Liability Did Not Cover Claims For Infringement of Title or Slogan in Unfair Competition Lawsuit Under Media Liability Policy

Interstate Bakeries Corp. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2011 WL 767055 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 25, 2011) The OneBeacon policy provides “advertising and personal injury liability” coverage for “claims arising from an occurrence committed by the insured during the policy term in or for scheduled advertising and arising from: . . .…