Davila v. Arlasky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there must be a “proximate causal connection between the advertising activity and the patent infringement, and ... that the alleged ‘advertising activity’ which causes the injury must occur in the very act of advertising”
• rejecting argument that “unfair competition” included an action for patent infringement due to the lack of causal relationship between the patent infringement suit and the insured’s advertising activities
• court granted insurer’s motion to intervene in light of insured’s failure to appear and unwillingness or inability to pay judgments entered against him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).