IP Insurance and Risk Transfer Toolkit: Coverage, Tender, and Specialty Policies

By Casey Scott McKay · 2024-01-03

An intellectual property lawsuit costs more than most of the damages that resolve it, and a meaningful share of that cost is recoverable from an insurer if somebody tenders in time and reads the right policy. This toolkit maps the whole risk-transfer stack: the advertising injury coverage buried in every commercial general liability policy and the exclusions that swallow most of it, the specialty products that actually cover patent and enforcement risk, the contractual indemnities and additional insured provisions that shift exposure before any policy is reached, and the tender mechanics that decide whether coverage exists in practice. It explains why the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and why that asymmetry is the single most valuable fact in the field. It covers reservation of rights, independent counsel, allocation, and the coverage claim itself. It closes with an authorities table and the forms that paper each step.

IP and Technology > General IP | Toolkit | Published 3 January 2024 - Updated 7 May 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. An intellectual property lawsuit costs more than most of the damages that resolve it, and a meaningful share of that cost is recoverable from an insurer if somebody tenders in time and reads the right policy. This toolkit maps the whole risk-transfer stack: the advertising injury coverage buried in every commercial general liability policy and the exclusions that swallow most of it, the specialty products that actually cover patent and enforcement risk, the contractual indemnities and additional insured provisions that shift exposure before any policy is reached, and the tender mechanics that decide whether coverage exists in practice. It explains why the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and why that asymmetry is the single most valuable fact in the field. It covers reservation of rights, independent counsel, allocation, and the coverage claim itself. It closes with an authorities table and the forms that paper each step.

Keywords: advertising injury · personal and advertising injury · duty to defend · commercial general liability · coverage b · prior publication exclusion · ip exclusion · tender · reservation of rights · allocation · media liability · technology errors and omissions · ip infringement policy · enforcement coverage · indemnity · additional insured · cyber policy · defense costs · coverage litigation · risk transfer

Start Here

Corbin Ashfield is general counsel of a mid-sized consumer products company. On a Thursday his company is served with a complaint asserting trademark infringement, false advertising, and trade dress infringement arising out of a campaign that ran for eight months.

He does three things that week. He engages defense counsel. He assembles the facts. And he does not tender the claim to any insurer, because nobody in the building believes intellectual property claims are covered.

Fourteen months and a substantial defense bill later, coverage counsel reviews the file and finds that the false advertising and trade dress counts fell squarely within the personal and advertising injury coverage in the company's general liability policy, that the insurer had a duty to defend the entire action once any count was potentially covered, and that late notice has now created an argument the company must overcome.

The lesson is not subtle. The most expensive mistake in this field is not a coverage denial. It is a claim nobody tendered.

This toolkit answers three questions.

What coverage exists, and where does it live? Usually somewhere the client does not think to look.
How do you tender so that coverage actually attaches? Timing, form, and what to send.
What can be shifted by contract before insurance is reached? Indemnities, additional insured status, and allocation.

If you read only one thing, read Who Pays for the IP Lawsuit?. It explains the duty-to-defend asymmetry, which is what makes ordinary liability policies valuable in intellectual property disputes and which most practitioners never learn.

Part One: The Coverage Hiding in the CGL Policy

Standard commercial general liability policies contain a coverage part for personal and advertising injury, commonly called Coverage B, and it is where most intellectual property coverage actually sits.

The enumerated offenses typically include the use of another's advertising idea in the insured's advertisement, and infringing upon another's copyright, trade dress, or slogan in the insured's advertisement. They also include defamation, disparagement, and invasion of privacy, which reach adjacent claims.

The trigger requires an advertisement. The offense must arise out of the insured's advertisement, as defined in the policy. That definition, and its application to a website, a product label, a package, or a trade show booth, is where a great deal of coverage litigation happens.

What is generally covered. Copyright infringement in advertising. Trade dress infringement in advertising. Slogan infringement. Misappropriation of advertising ideas. Disparagement of a competitor's goods, which reaches many false advertising claims.

What is generally excluded. Patent infringement. Trade secret misappropriation. And — critically — trademark infringement itself is frequently outside the enumerated offenses, though the trade dress and slogan offenses and the advertising idea offense capture a substantial share of what is pleaded as trademark infringement.

The exclusions that matter most.

The prior publication exclusion, barring coverage for an offense whose first publication predates the policy period. It is the single most litigated exclusion in this area and it defeats claims arising from long-running campaigns.
The knowing violation exclusion, for offenses committed with knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another.
The intellectual property exclusion, which many insurers have broadened over successive form revisions, sometimes to the point of eliminating most of what Coverage B once provided. Read the actual endorsement. Two policies with the same base form can have entirely different IP coverage.
Breach of contract, which excludes claims sounding in agreement rather than in tort.

Why it is worth tendering anyway. Because the duty to defend is triggered by potential coverage, evaluated against the allegations, and it is broader than the duty to indemnify. A complaint pleading five counts, one of which is potentially covered, generally obligates the insurer to defend the entire action. That single rule converts a policy that may not ultimately indemnify into a policy that pays the defense bill — and in most intellectual property disputes the defense bill is the real exposure.

Part Two: The Specialty Products

Media liability. Designed for publishers, broadcasters, agencies, and content businesses. It covers copyright and trademark infringement in content, defamation, privacy, and related offenses, typically without the CGL's advertising-only limitation. For any business whose product is content, this is the right policy and the CGL is a fallback.

Technology errors and omissions. Covers claims arising from the performance of technology services and products, frequently with intellectual property infringement coverage for the delivered technology. Standard for software and services businesses, and frequently required by enterprise customers.

Cyber. Principally data breach and privacy, and it increasingly overlaps with media liability at the edges. Read the two together, because a claim can fall between them.

IP infringement defense policies. Purpose-built coverage for defending infringement claims, including patent, which the CGL excludes. Underwritten individually, priced accordingly, and worth the exercise for a company with meaningful patent exposure.

IP enforcement or abatement coverage. The unusual product that funds the insured's own affirmative claims against infringers, typically with a co-insurance share and a recovery-sharing arrangement. Rare, expensive, and occasionally transformative for a small company facing a well-funded infringer.

Representations and warranties insurance in transactions, which can cover breaches of intellectual property representations and is now routine in mid-market deals. See IP Due Diligence Toolkit.

Directors and officers, which occasionally reaches intellectual property claims against individuals.

The practical advice. For most companies, the sequence is: know what Coverage B in the current CGL actually says after endorsements; add media liability if the business produces content; add technology errors and omissions if it produces software; and consider a specialty IP policy only where the exposure is concentrated and quantifiable.

Part Two-and-a-half: Mapping the Claim to the Coverage

The tender letter's central exercise is mapping pleaded allegations to enumerated offenses, and doing it well requires knowing which claim types map where. This is the working table.

| Pleaded claim | Statutory basis | Usual Coverage B route | Reliability | |---|---|---|---| | False advertising | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) | Disparagement offense; advertising idea offense | High, where a competitor's goods are implicated | | Trade dress infringement | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) | Trade dress offense, if in an advertisement | High | | Copyright in advertising | 17 U.S.C. § 501 | Copyright-in-advertisement offense | High | | Slogan infringement | 15 U.S.C. § 1114 | Slogan offense | High | | Trademark infringement | 15 U.S.C. § 1114 | Advertising idea offense; often excluded expressly | Variable | | Dilution | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) | Advertising idea or trade dress offense | Variable | | Right of publicity | State law | Privacy offense; advertising idea offense | Variable | | Cybersquatting | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) | Rarely; the advertisement trigger is hard | Low | | Counterfeiting | 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) | Knowing-violation exclusion usually applies | Low | | Patent infringement | 35 U.S.C. § 271 | Excluded | None, absent specialty coverage | | Trade secret misappropriation | 18 U.S.C. § 1836 | Excluded | None, absent specialty coverage | | Unfair competition, state law | State statutes | Follows the underlying theory pleaded | Variable |

Three rules for using the table.

One: plead-around does not defeat the duty to defend. What matters for the defense obligation is what the complaint alleges, evaluated for potential coverage, not how the plaintiff labeled the counts. A count labeled trademark infringement that alleges the insured copied the plaintiff's advertising campaign may engage the advertising idea offense whatever the caption says.

Two: one potentially covered count usually carries the whole defense. This is why the low-reliability rows still belong in the tender. The insured needs one door, not all of them.

Three: extrinsic facts matter in some jurisdictions and not others. Where extrinsic evidence can be considered on the duty to defend, facts outside the complaint may establish potential coverage; where the analysis is confined to the four corners, they cannot. Know which rule applies before deciding what to include in the tender.

Part Three: Tender

Tender is where coverage is won and lost, and it is mostly mechanical.

Tender immediately. On receipt of a complaint, a demand letter that threatens litigation, or a claim as the policy defines it. Policies require notice as soon as practicable, and many claims-made policies require notice within the policy period. Late notice is the most common ground of denial and, depending on the jurisdiction, may require the insurer to show prejudice — or may not.

Tender to every potentially applicable policy. Current and prior years, primary and excess, CGL and specialty, and any policy under which the insured is an additional insured. A long-running campaign may trigger multiple policy periods, and the prior publication exclusion analysis depends on which.

Tender in writing, to the address the policy specifies, and keep proof of delivery. Notice to a broker is not always notice to the insurer.

Send the complaint, and send the analysis. A tender letter that identifies which allegations map to which enumerated offenses does substantially better than one that forwards a complaint and asks. Quote the covered offense, quote the allegation, and connect them.

Tender even where coverage looks doubtful. The cost is an hour; the potential recovery is the defense of the case. Practitioners who do not tender because they predict a denial are making an underwriting decision they are not paid to make.

Then follow up. Insurers respond on their own schedule, and a tender that receives no response should be escalated in writing.

See Tendering and Winning an IP Coverage Claim.

Part Four: After the Tender

The reservation of rights. The usual response: the insurer agrees to defend while reserving the right to deny indemnity. Read it carefully, because the grounds reserved shape everything that follows.

Independent counsel. Where the reservation creates a conflict — typically because the insurer's coverage position would be advanced by a particular outcome in the underlying case — many jurisdictions entitle the insured to independent counsel at the insurer's expense, sometimes at statutorily constrained rates. Whether a conflict exists is a real question and should be analyzed rather than assumed.

Defense counsel's dual position. Counsel retained by an insurer to defend an insured owes duties to the insured, and the tension in a reservation-of-rights defense is genuine. Insureds should understand who counsel represents and what is being reported to the insurer.

Litigation guidelines and billing. Insurer guidelines constrain staffing, rates, and activities. They are negotiable more often than clients realize, and the time to negotiate is at the start.

Allocation. Where a case involves covered and uncovered claims, or covered and uncovered periods, the defense costs must be allocated. The insurer will propose an allocation favorable to the insurer. Track defense work in a way that supports the allocation you want, from the first invoice.

Settlement. Consent-to-settle provisions and cooperation clauses matter. Settling without consent can forfeit coverage; refusing a reasonable settlement within limits can expose an insurer to bad-faith liability. Both sides of that dynamic should be understood before the mediation.

Denial. A denial is a position, not a fact. Ask for the specific policy language relied on, respond in writing, and evaluate the coverage action — which in many jurisdictions carries fee-shifting or bad-faith exposure that changes the economics considerably.

Part Five: Risk Transfer Before Insurance

Insurance is the last layer. Most exposure moves by contract.

Indemnities. Who indemnifies whom, for what, with what procedure. In intellectual property matters the recurring gaps are: an indemnity covering patent but not trademark, an indemnity covering infringement but not advertising claims, and an indemnity with no defense-control or settlement-consent provisions, which produces a dispute about procedure rather than scope.

Caps and carve-outs. Intellectual property indemnities are frequently carved out of general liability caps, and whether they are is one of the most consequential terms in a technology or supply agreement.

Additional insured status. An indemnity is worth what the indemnitor can pay. Additional insured status reaches the policy directly and survives the indemnitor's insolvency. Require it, specify the coverage parts, require primary and non-contributory wording where appropriate, and — this is the part that is skipped — obtain and read the endorsement, not just the certificate. A certificate of insurance is a summary and confers nothing.

Waivers of subrogation where the commercial relationship warrants them.

Insurance requirements in every agreement that matters. Licenses, distribution agreements, manufacturing agreements, co-branding arrangements, agency agreements, and platform integrations. Coverage types, limits, additional insured status, notice of cancellation, and certificate delivery on a schedule. See Brand Licensing Program Toolkit; Co-Branding Agreement Checklist.

And verify. Requirements that are never verified are aspirations. A vendor whose certificate lapsed two years ago is an uninsured counterparty with a signed promise.

Part Six: The Claims That Generate Coverage Questions

False advertising. Frequently covered as disparagement where the claim alleges the insured disparaged a competitor's goods, and frequently covered as an advertising idea offense. One of the most reliably covered intellectual property claims. See False Advertising Under the Lanham Act; Advertising and Marketing Law Toolkit.

Trade dress. Expressly enumerated in most forms, where the infringement occurred in the insured's advertisement.

Copyright in advertising. Photography, music, copy, and design used without a license. Squarely within the enumerated offenses. See Small-Claims Copyright Enforcement Toolkit.

Right of publicity. Often reached through the privacy or advertising idea offenses, with meaningful variation across forms and jurisdictions. See Right of Publicity and Personal Brand Toolkit.

Keyword advertising claims. Litigated frequently on the advertisement trigger. See Buying a Competitor's Name.

Patent. Excluded from CGL almost universally. Specialty coverage or nothing.

Trade secrets. Generally excluded, and generally covered only by specialty products. See Trade Secret Protection Toolkit.

Counterfeiting claims against a seller. The knowing violation exclusion looms large where the pleading alleges willfulness, which counterfeiting claims almost always do. See Trademark Counterfeiting.

Part Six-and-a-half: The Enforcement Side

Almost all discussion of intellectual property insurance is defensive, and the affirmative side deserves a paragraph because clients ask about it.

Enforcement coverage exists and is unusual. A policy that funds the insured's own infringement claims, typically with a substantial co-insurance share, a recovery-sharing provision, and underwriting that examines the strength of the portfolio before binding. The underwriting exercise itself is informative — an insurer's unwillingness to write enforcement coverage on a portfolio is a data point about the portfolio.

Litigation finance is the adjacent product and is far more common: third-party funding of an affirmative claim in exchange for a share of recovery. It is not insurance and carries its own questions about control, privilege, and disclosure, several of which are jurisdiction-specific and evolving.

Fee-shifting is the free version. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) makes fees available in exceptional cases, 17 U.S.C. § 505 makes them discretionary in copyright, and 35 U.S.C. § 285 does the same in patent. A strong case against a weak defendant sometimes funds itself, and the prospect of fees changes settlement dynamics before any funding question arises.

And the counterfeiting statutes carry their own economics. Statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) and treble recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b) are what make default judgments against online sellers worth pursuing at all. See Marketplace and Platform Liability Toolkit.

The honest framing for a client. Enforcement coverage is worth exploring if the exposure is large, the portfolio is clean, and the company cannot fund a case from operations. For most companies the practical answer is a litigation reserve and a realistic view of fee-shifting, not a policy.

Part Seven: The Annual Coverage Review

Fifteen minutes with the broker, once a year, prevents most of the failures in this toolkit.

Read the actual Coverage B language and every IP-related endorsement, this year, on this policy. Do not rely on last year's summary.

Identify what the business now does that it did not do at the last renewal: new content, new software, new markets, new channels, new licensing relationships.

Confirm the specialty coverage matches the business. A content business without media liability and a software business without technology errors and omissions are both underinsured in a way that a CGL will not fix.

Check limits against realistic defense costs, not against expected damages. Defense is the exposure.

Confirm retroactive dates and continuity on claims-made policies. A gap in continuity can eliminate coverage for anything with a long history.

Confirm additional insured endorsements required of vendors are in place and current.

And keep the policies. Prior-year policies are assets. A claim arising from conduct three years ago is tendered to the policy in force then, and companies that discard expired policies discard coverage.

Part Eight: The Ten Coverage Mistakes

One: not tendering. The belief that intellectual property claims are never covered is wrong often enough that the belief itself is the most expensive thing in this field. Tender everything; let the insurer take the position.

Two: tendering only to the current policy. A campaign that ran for three years may implicate three policy periods, and the prior publication exclusion analysis depends on which policy is asked. Tender to all of them.

Three: forwarding the complaint without the mapping. A tender that says "please see attached" gets a form response. A tender that quotes the offense and the allegation side by side gets an adjuster who has to engage.

Four: treating a reservation of rights as a denial. It is a defense with conditions. The insurer is paying. Read what is reserved and proceed.

Five: treating a denial as final. Ask for the specific language relied on, respond in writing, and evaluate the coverage action. Insurers reverse positions in response to well-reasoned letters more often than practitioners assume.

Six: not tracking defense time by claim. Allocation disputes are decided on records. A firm that bills in undifferentiated blocks has surrendered the allocation argument before it starts.

Seven: settling without consent. Consent-to-settle provisions are enforced, and a settlement entered without notice can forfeit coverage entirely.

Eight: accepting a certificate of insurance as proof of additional insured status. The certificate is a summary prepared by a broker and disclaims reliance on its own face. The endorsement is the grant. Ask for the endorsement.

Nine: discarding expired policies. A claim arising from conduct four years ago is tendered to the policy in force then. Keep every policy, permanently, and keep the endorsements with them.

Ten: never reading the endorsements at renewal. Insurers broaden intellectual property exclusions over successive form revisions, and the broadening arrives quietly with a renewal package nobody reads. The fifteen-minute annual review exists precisely to catch this, and it catches it regularly.

Part Eight-and-a-half: Coordinating Insurance With the Underlying Defense

The two are usually run by different people, which is where the value leaks.

Tell defense counsel about the coverage position. Counsel who does not know which counts are covered cannot structure the defense with allocation in mind, and cannot flag a settlement structure that would maximize the insured portion.

Structure settlements with coverage in mind, honestly. Allocating a settlement across covered and uncovered claims is legitimate where the allocation reflects the merits; it is not legitimate where it is an artifice, and insurers challenge artificial allocations successfully. The right time to think about it is at mediation, with a supportable basis.

Watch the pleading amendments. A plaintiff who amends to add or drop counts changes the coverage picture, and an amendment that removes the only covered count can end the defense obligation. Notify the insurer of amendments and understand what they do.

Watch willfulness. Allegations of knowing conduct engage the knowing-violation exclusion, and a defense that concedes knowledge for strategic reasons in the underlying case may forfeit indemnity. Coordinate before conceding.

And keep the coverage file separate. Communications with coverage counsel about the insurer's position are not communications with defense counsel about the merits, and conflating them creates privilege problems in a coverage dispute later.

Cost Map

| Item | Relative cost | When | |---|---|---| | Annual coverage review with broker and counsel | Low | Annually | | Media liability or tech E&O premium | Moderate, recurring | At renewal | | Specialty IP defense policy | High, recurring | Where exposure is concentrated | | Tender letter with allegation mapping | Very low | Immediately on claim | | Coverage counsel opinion | Moderate | On a reservation or denial | | Coverage litigation | High | Where the denial is wrong and the stakes justify it | | Defense of an IP suit without coverage | Very high | The counterfactual |

The ratio. The tender letter costs an hour. The defense it may shift costs six or seven figures. There is no other step in this practice with that return, and the reason it is skipped is a belief — usually wrong — that intellectual property claims are never covered.

What Happened to Corbin's Company

The late tender was made, fourteen months in, with a full allegation-to-offense mapping and an explanation of the delay.

The insurer defended under a reservation of rights as to the trademark count and the willfulness allegations, and disputed a portion of the pre-tender defense costs. Whether the insurer could disclaim those costs turned on the jurisdiction's approach to prejudice from late notice, and it was resolved by negotiation rather than by litigation — the insurer paid a substantial share of the incurred fees and assumed the defense going forward.

Independent counsel was not triggered, because the reservation did not create a conflict on the facts, and the company continued with its chosen defense counsel under negotiated rates.

Allocation became the live issue: the patent-adjacent theory pleaded in one count was uncovered, and the insurer proposed an allocation that assigned most of the defense to it. Because the company's counsel had, from month fifteen, tracked time by claim, the allocation was resolved on the basis of records rather than assertion — which is the entire reason to track it that way.

The case settled eleven months later within limits, with insurer consent.

And the annual review now happens. The company added media liability, discovered that a broadened IP exclusion had been added to its CGL at a renewal three years earlier without anyone reading it, negotiated it back at the next renewal, and put additional insured verification into its vendor onboarding. The whole program costs a fraction of the fourteen months of unfunded defense.

A closing word on who does this work. Coverage is a specialty, and general intellectual property practitioners are not expected to litigate a coverage action. But three things are squarely within any practitioner's job: recognizing that a claim may be covered, getting the tender out promptly and properly, and telling the client to keep every policy it has ever had. Those three cost almost nothing and they preserve everything else. A practitioner who does them well has converted an uninsured defense into an insured one more than once, and the client remembers which lawyer suggested looking.

The same is true in reverse when advising a claimant: knowing that the defendant's insurer is funding the defense tells you something real about how the case will be resourced and how it is likely to settle, and it is worth asking early.

A Suggested Reading Path

If you have a specific problem right now, branch:

You have been sued. Who Pays for the IP Lawsuit? → Tendering and Winning an IP Coverage Claim.
The claim is about advertising. False Advertising Under the Lanham Act → Advertising and Marketing Law Toolkit.
You are drafting insurance requirements. Brand Licensing Program Toolkit → Co-Branding Agreement Checklist.
A transaction is coming. Trademark Due Diligence Checklist → IP Due Diligence Toolkit.
Trade secrets or patent exposure. Trade Secrets and the DTSA → Trade Secret Protection Toolkit.

If you are building the program from nothing, read in this order:

Who Pays for the IP Lawsuit? — the duty-to-defend asymmetry.
Tendering and Winning an IP Coverage Claim — the mechanics.
False Advertising Under the Lanham Act — the most reliably covered claim type.
Trademark Fair Use Audit Checklist — preventing the claims in the first place.
Trademark Due Diligence Checklist — the transactional layer.

Primary Authorities

| Authority | Rule, in one line | |---|---| | 15 U.S.C. § 1114 | Trademark infringement; the count most often outside Coverage B. | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) | False designation and trade dress; the enumerated-offense overlap. | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) | False advertising; frequently covered as disparagement. | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) | Dilution; coverage varies by form and allegation. | | 15 U.S.C. § 1116 | Injunctive relief; generally not "damages" for indemnity purposes. | | 15 U.S.C. § 1117 | Monetary recovery; the indemnity exposure. | | 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b) | Treble damages for counterfeiting; willfulness and the knowing-violation exclusion. | | 17 U.S.C. § 501 | Copyright infringement; enumerated in most forms when in an advertisement. | | 17 U.S.C. § 504 | Copyright damages, including statutory damages. | | 18 U.S.C. § 1836 | DTSA claims; generally excluded from CGL. | | 35 U.S.C. § 271 | Patent infringement; excluded from CGL almost universally. | | 35 U.S.C. § 284 | Patent damages; the exposure a specialty policy addresses. | | 15 U.S.C. § 45 | Unfair or deceptive acts; regulatory exposure, generally uninsured. | | 11 U.S.C. § 362 | Automatic stay; why additional insured status outlives an indemnitor's insolvency. |

Forms and Templates

The tender letter is the form that matters, and it is short. Identify the policy and period. Identify the claim. Then map, allegation by allegation, the pleaded facts to the enumerated offenses in the policy — quoting both. Attach the complaint and any demand correspondence. Request a written coverage position by a stated date. Send it to the address the policy specifies, by a method that produces proof of delivery, with a copy to the broker.

License Agreement Template carries the insurance requirements that do the risk transfer before any policy of yours is reached: coverage types, minimum limits, additional insured status on a primary and non-contributory basis, waiver of subrogation where appropriate, notice of cancellation, and certificate delivery with the underlying endorsement. Requiring a certificate alone is the most common drafting shortfall — the certificate is informational and the endorsement is the grant. Read it with Draft License Agreement.

And a standing internal form worth having: a one-page claim intake sheet that anyone in the company can complete on receipt of a demand letter or complaint, routing it to whoever owns tender. Most late tenders are not decisions; they are a complaint that sat with a business unit for six weeks.

Related Toolkits and Checklists

Advertising and Marketing Law Toolkit covers the claims most likely to be covered, and the compliance program that prevents them. Trademark Litigation Toolkit covers the underlying defense that insurance funds.

Brand Licensing Program Toolkit is where insurance requirements are imposed on counterparties. IP Due Diligence Toolkit covers representations and warranties coverage and the diligence that supports it.

Trade Secret Protection Toolkit and Software, Data, and Open Source Toolkit cover exposures that CGL policies exclude and that specialty products address. The Brand Owner's Master Toolkit indexes the shelf.