holding that "direct infringement claim does not fall within the policy's coverage merely because the infringing device may have been advertised by [defendant]."
Summary of this case from Owners Ins. Co. v. Cruz AccessoriesNo. 93-1922.
April 8, 1994.
Appeal from the E.D.Va., 824 F.Supp. 583.
AFFIRMED.
holding that "direct infringement claim does not fall within the policy's coverage merely because the infringing device may have been advertised by [defendant]."
Summary of this case from Owners Ins. Co. v. Cruz Accessoriesaffirming reasoning of lower court regarding policy interpretation
Summary of this case from Sunex Intern., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.applying California law to interpret a CGL insurance policy, court found that "`[s]tyle of doing business' expresses essentially the same concept as the more widely used term: `trade dress'"
Summary of this case from Dogloo, Inc. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New Yorkapplying California substantive law to conclude that a patent infringement did not amount to the misappropriation of a "style of doing business"
Summary of this case from Lebas Fashion Imports of USA, Inc. v. ITT Hartford Ins. GroupFull title:St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Advanced Interventional Systems, Inc
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Date published: Apr 8, 1994
Most courts agree that the phrase "style of doing business" refers to the manner in which a business is…
Winklevoss Con. v. Federal Ins.Winklevoss fares no better with the "misappropriation of a style of doing business" offense. The courts…