Travelers Indemnity Company, a Connecticut Corporation v. Levi Strauss & Company, a Delaware Corporation

30 F.3d 140 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEVI STRAUSS & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-16747. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 2, 1994. * Decided July 29, 1994. 1 Before: GOODWIN and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and KEEP, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Levi Strauss & Company appeals a summary judgment in favor of Travelers Indemnity Company. The district court held that Travelers did not have a duty under California law to defend or indemnify Levi Strauss against an underlying lawsuit alleging patent infringement and inducement of patent infringement. We affirm. BACKGROUND 4 In the underlying lawsuit for which Levi Strauss seeks indemnification, defendant-intervenor Greater Texas Finishing Corporation alleged that Levi Strauss 5 infringed, is infringing, and is inducing others to infringe, and intends to…