Defense
Software Industry:
A patent troll tried to enforce his patents to collect licensing revenue. The patent holder does not produce a product, but uses litigation to broadly assert the rights of a patent in the industry. The tactic is to assert patent rights against smaller companies unable or unwilling to fight a court battle. Once several smaller companies have settled, the troll pursues larger companies as well as their clients and suppliers. Defense insurance gave the insured the ability to possibly invalidate the accusing patent or settle, as well as strong advice regarding the decision making process.
Shoe Industry:
A small shoe manufacturer/distributor was recently accused of infringement by an attorney patent troll. The troll has a patent that he has successfully enforced against smaller manufacturers who could not pay to defend themselves; therefore, forcing them to sign license agreements and pay royalties. The insured discussed the situation with our Claims Management Department, which was able to offer guidance regarding how to handle the discussion and respond to the accuser and his attorney. Unlike the other small manufacturers that were forced to give up their rights to manufacture, our insured used the power of his defense policy, and would have been prepared to fight this weak allegation against him.
Electronic Article Surveillance Industry:
An industry leader was successfully defeated in the plaintiff friendly Eastern District of Texas by our insured after the claim of patent infringement of their electronic surveillance tags was rejected by the jury. If our insured would have lost, they could have easily been put out of business. Happily the money was available to fund a successful defense. Our insured was quoted as saying, “You never know when you will need insurance”. It was the first verdict for the defendant, our insured, out of the past 20 (twenty) cases tried in this district.
Artificial Sweetener Industry:
A competitor sued numerous companies in the industry for patent infringement. The Insured had limited their insurance to cover only the “most valuable” products. However, the plaintiff brought in several pieces of technology that were outside the scope of the insured’s coverage. By trying to guess what may happen in the future, the insured set themselves up for coverage on a pro-rata basis, instead of having the foresight of insuring all of their products. Nevertheless, the suit was dropped against them because they did have the insurance to fight the accuser.
Abatement
Personal Fitness Industry:
Our insured is a producer of a mechanism for personal fitness machines. He was able to sue a competitor for using that mechanism in their production and sales because he had the funds through his Abatement Policy to enforce his patent. The competitor was forced to withdraw from the market and pay a financial settlement to the insured. The personal fitness industry is one of the most litigious art areas.
Music Industry:
Our insured purchased a policy for their invention which was in the application stage pending registration. Before the patent issued, a large competitor began producing an infringing product. Once the patent had issued, the insured was able to pursue the alleged infringer and assert their patent rights. Without the insurance policy providing the funds to enforce their rights, the competitor would have been able to continue to take the insured’s market share. The insured would have possibly gone out of business or lost a high percentage of their market share.
Construction Industry:
Our insured sued a competitor for literal infringement of their major structural patented product, and asked for a permanent injunction and award of damages and lost profits due to the infringement. The inability to enforce their patents would have seriously impacted their market share, as well as the reputation that they have worked hard to build in their market industry.
Engineering Manufacturer:
Our insured, a leading engineering manufacturer, had the foresight to insure their invention while in the patent application stage. , The insured was able to make the alleged infringer aware of their patent application and that it they had insurance. Though unable to assert their rights until the patent issued, by insuring while in the application stage, the insured had secured their rights to pursue the alleged infringer once the patent issued, and pursue damages, lost profits, as well as injunctive relief to stop the infringement of the claimed invention.
Promotions Company:
Our insured had an existing working relationship with the manufacturer of his patented invention who, according to the insured, was a huge part of their team and the success of the company. The insured alleged that the manufacturer went behind his back and knowingly shared his work with insured’s competitors. Ultimately the insured found a new manufacturer and recovered costs for lost revenues.
Bicycle Manufacturer:
Our longtime insured was able to successfully halt the production of the infringing products by utilizing our IP Abatement policy. The insured negotiated licensing agreements, and used our Early Intervention Program to notify the alleged infringers of his patent rights and insurance policy.
Aerospace Parts Supplier:
Our insured was sued for patent infringement. Since he held an Abatement policy, the insured was able utilize the policy because he had a right to file a counterclaim in response to the IP claim for the aspects related to their intellectual property, on a pro rata basis. This is a major component of the Abatement policy.
