Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves LSI Logic Corporation's (LSI) request for a defense under a foreign commercial general liability insurance policy issued by the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP). The policy required coverage for advertising injuries occurring outside the United States. LSI sought coverage for a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Philips Corporation concerning activities within the United States. The court upheld the district court's decision that LSI failed to meet the coverage-territory condition, as the product descriptions on LSI's website did not constitute sufficient extraterritorial activity to trigger policy coverage. As a result, ICSOP's motion to dismiss was granted, and the court did not address other issues. The decision is non-precedential and not citable within the circuit, except under specific rules. The outcome favored ICSOP, relieving it of the duty to defend LSI in the U.S. patent lawsuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Coverage Territory Exclusions in Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that LSI's activities did not meet the extraterritorial requirements necessary to invoke coverage under the insurance policy as the activities occurred within the United States.
Reasoning: It determined that the product descriptions on LSI's website did not amount to adequate extraterritorial activity to bring the underlying facts of the U.S. patent suit within the designated coverage area.
Duty to Defend under Foreign Liability Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the insurer, ICSOP, did not have a duty to defend LSI in the U.S. patent lawsuit as the alleged advertising injury occurred outside the policy's coverage territory.
Reasoning: The court adopted the district court's ruling from August 5, 2004, concluding that LSI did not satisfy the policy's coverage-territory condition.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictions of Court Memorandasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's memorandum is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit, except as specifically allowed by the circuit rule.
Reasoning: The memorandum is designated as not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit's courts except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.