Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Techmedica, Inc. appealed a summary judgment in favor of Commercial Union Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company, which determined that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify Techmedica in a patent infringement lawsuit initiated by Zimmer, the owner of a hip replacement device patent. The jury had previously ruled against Techmedica, awarding Zimmer $7.5 million in total damages, including attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. Techmedica sought coverage under the 'advertising injury' clauses of its insurance policies post-verdict, but the insurers denied coverage, stating that patent infringement was not encompassed by these clauses. The district court's summary judgment, which Techmedica challenged, was upheld, confirming that such infringement claims relate to product sales rather than advertising, thus falling outside the scope of 'advertising injury' under California law. The court further rejected Techmedica's argument of a causal link between its advertising and the infringement, highlighting that similar arguments had failed in previous cases. The ruling, consistent with established case law, led to a denial of attorney's fees for Techmedica and a decision not to publish the case per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Causal Connection Requirement for 'Advertising Injury'subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no causal connection between Techmedica's advertising activities and the alleged patent infringement, as required by precedent.
Reasoning: In the case of Techmedica, the court addressed the issue of whether a causal connection existed between the company's advertising activities and alleged patent infringement, as required by precedent established in Bank of the West.
Duty to Defend under 'Advertising Injury' Clausessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that patent infringement claims do not constitute 'advertising injury' under California law, and thus insurers have no duty to defend such claims.
Reasoning: The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers, confirming that patent infringement does not fall under 'advertising injury' provisions per California law, as such claims arise from product sales rather than advertising activities.
Summary Judgment in Insurance Coverage Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the summary judgment for the insurers, holding that there was no breach of contract or bad faith in denying coverage for patent infringement claims.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Techmedica, denied its request for attorney's fees, and determined that the case did not warrant publication or citation by the courts in the circuit.