In Mez Industires, Inc. v. Pacific Nat. Ins. Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 856, the Court of Appeal concluded "the advertising injury provisions of the policy did not provide coverage . . . for inducement of patent infringement," "no potential for coverage existed as a matter of law and thus no duty to defend ever arose." (Id. at p. 861.) The policy promised the insurer would "'pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . "advertising injury" to which this coverage part applies.'" (Id. at p. 862-863, fn. 5.) "'"Advertising Injury"'" was defined to include: "'Misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business,'" and "'Infringement of copyright, title or slogan.'" (Ibid.) The appellate court determined that, in "the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, the policy terms 'misappropriation of an advertising idea or style of doing business' and 'infringement of copyright, title or slogan' simply could not be reasonably read by a layperson to include either patent infringement or the inducement thereof." (Id. at p. 872.)