this Analysis, Timothy P. Law and Jeremy F. Heinnickel discuss the Tenth
Circuit's decision in Dish Network Corp.
v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20955 (10th Cir. Colo.
Oct. 17, 2011) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law].
The Tenth Circuit held that allegations of patent infringement can fall within
the advertising liability coverage section of commercial general liability
(CGL) insurance policies. The authors write:
patent infringement action was brought against Dish Network by Ronald A. Katz
Technology Licensing, L.P. (RAKTL) alleging infringement of automated telephone
service patents. The technology allegedly allowed Dish Network's customers to
"perform pay-per-view ordering and customer service functions over the
telephone." Dish Network requested a defense from its insurance companies
for the RAKTL litigation, but its request was denied. Consequently, Dish
Network filed an action in Colorado federal court seeking a declaration that the
insurance companies had a duty to defend and indemnify.
district court entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies.
Although the district court found that RAKTL alleged that Dish Network engaged
in advertising, the district court ruled that Dish Network's activities did not
constitute "misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing
business" because RAKTL's allegations focused on Dish Network's use of the
patented technologies to convey content, rather than the incorporation of
patented technologies into Dish Network's advertising.
Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling. The Tenth Circuit
acknowledged that some courts have categorically denied coverage for patent
infringement cases but noted that "the bulk of published case law
discussing patent infringement as advertising injury deals with products the
insured happened to advertise, rather than a means of advertising that the
insured used to market its own products." ...
Access the full version of Reed Smith on Tenth Circuit
Finds Duty to Defend Patent Infringement Allegations with your lexis.com ID.
Additional fees may be incurred. (approx. 3 pages)
If you do not have a
lexis.com ID, you can purchase this commentary and additional Emerging Issues
Analysis content at the LexisNexis Store.
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate