Contempt Requires Infringement

Bass Pro Trademarks, LLC v. Cabela's, Inc., [06-1276](April 6, 2007)[NEWMAN, Clevenger, Dyk] The Federal Circuit vacated a contempt order and accompanying sanctions because Cabela's redesigned device could not reasonably be found to infringe Bass Pro's U.S. Patent No. 5,620,227 on a combination vest and folding seat.
BRIEF: In settling a prior infringement action the parties entered into a settlement agreement and consent judgement. Two years later Cabela's began selling a folding seat held by backpack-type straps. Bass Pro moved for contempt of the Consent Judgment. The Federal Circuit said that contempt requires infringement. Bass Pro argued that the term "vest" was a term in the preamble, and not a claim limitation, while Cabela's pointed out that the term "vest" was not merely a term in the preamble, and was added during prosecution. The Federal Circuit said that claims are construed to implement the invention described in the specification and prosecution history, within the confines of the prior art. The Federal Circuit that vest was a material limitation to the claim, and the claim cannot be found to be infringed.