Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1577.OPINION.2-11-2026_2646300.pdf"><em>Ingevity Corporation v. BASF Corporation</em>, No. 2024-1577 (Feb. 11, 2026)</a>, affirming a jury’s finding of antitrust liability and a damages award against a patent holder who tied patent licenses to the purchase of its unpatented products.

core/paragraph

Ingevity sued BASF in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent RE38,844 (“the ’844 patent”), directed to a dual-stage fuel-vapor canister system for reducing automobile emissions. Both parties manufacture carbon honeycombs used in automotive systems, including fuel vapor canisters covered by the patent and air-intake systems that are not covered. BASF counterclaimed for antitrust violations, alleging that Ingevity unlawfully tied licenses to the ’844 patent to customers’ agreements to exclusively purchase Ingevity’s unpatented honeycomb products.

The key issue was whether Ingevity’s unpatented honeycomb products were “nonstaple goods,” &nbsp;goods that lack substantial non-infringing uses. Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(c), (d) a patentee can control nonstaple goods that are only capable of infringing use. To succeed on its unlawful tying claim BASF needed to show that Ingevity’s unpatented honeycomb products had actual and substantial non-infringing uses.

At trial, BASF presented Ingevity’s own sales records showing over 18,000 units sold for non-infringing air-intake applications, technical expert testimony, and internal Ingevity documents corroborating those uses. Ingevity argued the records contained errors and that such uses were impossible, relying on testimony from its executives. The jury found that Ingevity had engaged in unlawful tying and awarded $28,285,714 in damages. Ingevity moved for JMOL, the district court denied the motion, and Ingevity timely appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Ingevity’s honeycombs were staple goods. The jury was entitled to credit Ingevity’s contemporaneous business records and BASF’s expert testimony over contradictory testimony from interested Ingevity executives. The Court rejected Ingevity’s immunity arguments, finding them forfeited because Ingevity materially changed its theory on appeal, now claiming that actual tying conduct itself was immune regardless of whether the honeycomb products were staple goods. The Court explained that Ingevity had previously agreed that tying conduct exceeding mere patent enforcement communications was not immune, and it could not advance this new theory for the first time on appeal. The Court also upheld the damages award, explaining that BASF only needed to show that Ingevity’s conduct was a material cause of injury.

CAFC Affirms Jury Verdict of Unlawful Tying

Related Professionals