Implicit Disparagement Triggered by Important Differentiator Moniker

E.piphany, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 590 F. Supp. 2d 124 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (The court found a duty to defend where the policyholder asserting claims for tortious interference which the claimant, Sigma, alleged that E.piphany falsely stated that it was the only producer of "all Java" and "fully J2EE" software solutions which was an "important differentiator" between competing products even though some competitors offered products with those exact features and the parties were direct competitors in the market. Contentions that Sigma's market share sales and reputation were damaged as a result of plaintiff's allegedly false statement triggered coverage for disparagement by "clear implication" especially in light of decisions in Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. J. Lamb, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1034 (2002); Knoll Pharm. Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co., 152 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (N.D. Ill. 2001); and National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 233 Fed. Appx. 614 (9th Cir. May 1, 2007).)