270_C361

PIRACY COVERAGE DIFFERS FROM PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Commercial General Liability

Patent Infringement

Piracy

Duty To Defend And Indemnify

Advertising Injury

 

Konami (America), Inc. (Konami) had secured two comprehensive general liability policies from Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois (Hartford-Illinois) and one from Hartford Casualty (The Hartford) for periods beginning on December 17, l986 and ending December 17, 1989. The three policies were similar but only the first covered piracy. None covered damages arising from patent infringement.

 

On June 1, 1993, North American Philips Corporation and Lockheed Sanders, Inc. (jointly North American/Lockheed) filed a complaint in federal court alleging patent infringement. It alleged that Konami had infringed on patents relating to digital circuitry for television games. It also alleged that Konami had incorporated a North American/Lockheed patented device into its coin-operated video games that were manufactured, used, and sold to its distributors.

 

Konami tendered the defense of the action to The Hartford on July 9, 1993. The Hartford denied that its policy provided coverage because the complaint did not allege an advertising injury arising out of the insured's advertising activities. On February 15, 1994, Konami agreed to pay North American/Lockheed $495,000,representing a 3% royalty on each game sold up until April 1989.

 

Konami filed its complaint against The Hartford for breach of contract on June 28, 1994. It alleged that The Hartford was obligated to defend and indemnify it and contended that the policies The Hartford issued covered any actions arising from alleged patent infringement under the "advertising injury" provision.

 

The trial court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment on the second and third policy and Konami did not appeal. As to the first policy, the trial court reconsidered its opinion and granted summary judgment for Konami for settlement of the primary action, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, in the total amount of $984,943.15. The Hartford appealed.

 

The question before the higher court was whether patent infringement was an "advertising injury" covered by Hartford's policy. Konami contended that The Hartford was obligated to defend and indemnify it if it committed patent infringement in its advertising. The court agreed with the insured that some dictionaries define "piracy" to include patent infringement but it said the word had to be construed in the context of the policy. While the policy in this case used the word "piracy," coverage under that provision was limited to occurrences in the course of Konami's business.

 

The higher court said: "Direct patent infringement refers to the making, using, or selling of a patented invention." Furthermore, North American/Lockheed did not allege it was injured in any way by Konami's advertising. Without such a connection to advertising activities, Konami cannot be afforded coverage under the advertising injury provision."

 

The trial court erred in granting Konami's motion for summary judgment and that judgment was reversed.

 

Konami (America) Inc., v. Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois, Appellant-No. 2-00-1219-Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District-January 4, 2002-761 North Eastern Reporter 2d 1277