MERGENET SOLUTIONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the insurance policy's intellectual property rights exclusion barred coverage for the underlying claims, relieving the insurer of the duty to defend or indemnify.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when the claims fall within a policy's intellectual property rights exclusion.
[2] An intellectual property rights exclusion in an insurance policy broadly bars coverage for claims based upon, arising out of, or in any way involving intellectual propert…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMergenet Solutions, Inc. sought defense and indemnity from Carolina Casualty Insurance Company for underlying lawsuits alleging patent ownership dispu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Indemnify cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Mergenet Solutions, Inc., appeals the trial court’s order granting Ap-pellee, Carolina Casualty Insurance Company’s, motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
This case involves two underlying actions: one against Mergenet and one third-party counterclaim against Mergen-et’s wholly owned subsidiary, Innomed Technologies, Inc. In each case, the plaintiff essentially claims that Mergenet and Innomed obtained an ownership interest in a patent held, at least in pai’t, by the plaintiff, without fairly compensating the plaintiff. Carolina Casualty issued a Management Liability Policy to Mergenet from December 2002 to December 2003 and again from December 2003 to December 2004. After Carolina Casualty denied coverage of the claims, Mergenet filed an action for declaratory relief seeking a determination of Carolina Casualty’s duty to defend and indemnify Mergenet against the lawsuits. Carolina Casualty ultimately filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted after finding that Carolina Casualty owed a duty neither to defend nor indemnify either underlying claim because the claims came within the policy’s Intellectual Property Rights Exclusion.
The policy’s Intellectual Property Rights Exclusion provides, in part, that Carolina Casualty shall not be liable for loss in connection with a claim “based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving any actual or alleged ... intellectual property rights.” Such a broad exclusion certainly applies to the claims involved in the instant case which arise out of plaintiffs alleged ownership of the patents acquired by Mergenet and Innomed. See Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques, 136 F.3d 1443, 1448 (11th Cir.1998) (stating *65that there are three principal forms of intellectual property rights which include copyright, patent, and trademark). The trial court correctly granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Affirmed.
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westchester Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 48 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques, 136 F.3d 1443 (11th Cir. 1998)