Maxconn Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that while the amendment may provide a casual connection between the injury and the insured’s advertising activity, patent infringement does not constitute an “advertising injury.”
• “The absence of an expression or word in a policy is clearly an appropriate consideration in the interpretation of contracts.”
• “The absence of an expression or word in a policy is clearly an appropriate consideration in the interpretation of contracts.”
• “The absence of an expression or word in a policy is clearly an appropriate consideration in the interpretation of contracts.”
• the court characterized as unreasonable the argument that the word \title\ could refer to ownership of property such as a patent
• \[T]he amendment of the [patent] statute has nullified the argument that patent infringement could not arise out of the insured's advertising activities as a matter of law.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).