218 exclusion clearly and unambiguously covers the allegations in the Flextronics Action, PTC’s expectations have no further ' l’oleto play in this analysis. III. CONCLUSION •For the reasons set forth more fully ahpve, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion, for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED. Although Charter Oak has not itself moved for dismissal, PTC acknowledges “[i]f the Court rules that the IP' Exclusion applies, the case is over.” Having resolved that, the IP exclusion. does • apply to the Flextronics Action, I direct the clerk to .enter a judgment. for the defendant declaring that the exclusion does apply. . 2015 DNH 154 Leon H. RIDEOUT, Andrew Langlois, and Brandon D. Ross v. William M. GARDNER, New Hampshire Secretary of State. Case No. 14-cv-489-PB. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. Signed Aug. 11, 2015.