Affirming the district court on narrower ground, the court misstates that the reason for the change from misappropriation in the predecessor ISO coverage for offense (d) transitioning to offense (f) was simply to render the prior coverage for misappropriation broader than common law misappropriation ignoring the actual content of the cited article for David A. Gauntlett New Appleman on Insurance Law, §§ 30.01(4)(a)(ii)(B)(3)-(C) (2011), the court presumes that the other must have its product misappropriated, i.e., taken, as opposed to misused without reference to pertinent case law. Focusing only on the Federal anti-trust law claims, the court found these barred as they were dependent upon the "knowing violation of personal and advertising injury" coverage as well as deliberate and criminal acts within the Penal Code" exclusion. Neither finding properly addresses the false advertising claims and revisitation of Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 500 F. 3d 640, 642-644 (7th Cir. (Ill.) 2007), whose analytic underpinnings were questioned by the Illinois Court of Appeals in Axiom Ins. Managers, LLC v. Capital Specialty Ins. Corp., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1012-1013 (E.D. Ill. 2012). Notably, this decision was not cited by the Supreme Court of Utah's Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 UT 6, 297 P.3d 578 decision, despite the district court's relying on the district court opinion in Rose Acre for its analysis, undoubtedly because of the deficiencies in this court's reasoning.