On February 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit in Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 2024-1577, affirmed a jury verdict finding unlawful tying under the Sherman Act and upholding a $28.3 million damages award (trebled to approximately $84.8 million).
The opinion, authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, is a consequential reminder that patent rights do not insulate a patentee from antitrust liability when it conditions patent licenses on the purchase of unpatented staple goods. It also clarifies the interaction between 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)–(d), the “staple article” doctrine, and antitrust tying principles under the Sherman Act.
Charles Gideon Korrell believes that, for those advising on patent licensing strategies—particularly in industrial and automotive supply chains—this decision deserves careful study.
The Factual Setting: Fuel Vapor Canisters, Carbon Honeycombs, and Licensing Leverage
Ingevity and BASF both manufacture carbon honeycombs—activated carbon structures used in automotive applications, including:
- Fuel vapor canisters (evaporative emissions control), and
- Air-intake systems (filtering incoming engine air).
Ingevity owned U.S. Patent RE38,844, directed to a dual-stage fuel vapor canister system. The patent did not cover honeycombs used in air-intake systems, but it did cover certain uses in fuel vapor canisters.
BASF introduced a competing honeycomb product (EvapTrap XC). Ingevity sued for patent infringement. BASF counterclaimed, alleging:
- Unlawful tying (Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2),
- Exclusive dealing, and
- Tortious interference.
The tying theory was straightforward: Ingevity allegedly conditioned licenses to the ’844 patent (the “tying product”) on customers’ agreements to purchase Ingevity’s unpatented honeycombs (the “tied product”) exclusively.
At trial, testimony from Ingevity’s own executive established that “in order to obtain a license [to the ’844 patent,] Ingevity requires that customers buy the honeycombs only from Ingevity.”
As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, that testimony proved pivotal.
The Patent Misuse Defense: The Staple vs. Nonstaple Divide
Ingevity’s principal defense rested on 35 U.S.C. § 271(d), which protects patentees from being “deemed guilty of misuse” when controlling nonstaple goods—those not suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
The statutory structure is familiar:
- § 271(c): Contributory infringement applies only to components “not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.”
- § 271(d): A patentee shall not be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse for actions taken to enforce such rights.
The Supreme Court in Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980), made clear that patentees may lawfully control nonstaple goods that have no substantial noninfringing use.
Ingevity argued that its honeycombs were nonstaple and thus lawfully subject to control—even if that control suppressed competition in an unpatented goods market.
The jury rejected that premise.
Substantial Evidence of Staple Goods
The central factual question was whether Ingevity’s honeycombs had “actual and substantial noninfringing uses.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that they did.
1. Documentary Sales Evidence
BASF introduced Ingevity’s own internal records showing repeated sales of honeycombs for air-intake systems (a concededly noninfringing use), totaling more than 18,000 units across multiple years.
Ingevity claimed those records were typographical errors. The jury was free to disbelieve that explanation—particularly where no corroborating evidence supported it.
2. Technical Evidence
BASF relied on:
- The Park patent (covering Ingevity’s honeycomb manufacturing process), which disclosed air-intake use as an intended application, and
- Expert testimony establishing suitability for air-intake systems.
Ingevity offered no competing expert testimony demonstrating technical impossibility.
3. “Substantial” Does Not Mean Majority
Ingevity argued that 18,000 units were not “substantial” relative to total sales. The Federal Circuit rejected a rigid proportionality test, citing Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
“Substantial” does not require majority usage. It excludes only uses that are “unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental.”
Recurring, commercially viable noninfringing uses met the standard.
Once the product was deemed a staple, § 271(d) no longer shielded the tying conduct.
Immunity: Noerr-Pennington and the Failed Reframing
Ingevity also argued immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, claiming its conduct was merely patent enforcement.
But the jury instructions explicitly distinguished:
- Protected patent communications, from
- Unlawful tying or exclusive dealing beyond the scope of the patent monopoly.
By finding unlawful tying, the jury necessarily found conduct beyond mere enforcement.
On appeal, Ingevity attempted to reframe its argument, asserting that even actual tying of staple goods was immune under Rohm & Haas. The Federal Circuit held this theory forfeited and unsupported.
Charles Gideon Korrell notes that the court emphasized that no authority extends immunity to classic commercial tying conduct merely because a patent is involved.
Antitrust Framework: Classic Tying
Under Third Circuit law (applied here), tying requires:
- Two distinct products,
- Market power in the tying product, and
- A substantial effect on interstate commerce.
The court cited Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984), and Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006), reinforcing that patent ownership does not automatically establish market power—but neither does it immunize leveraging that power into adjacent markets.
Even a lawfully obtained patent monopoly cannot be expanded to control staple goods outside the patent’s scope.
Damages: No Mandatory Disaggregation
The jury awarded $28.3 million (trebled).
Ingevity argued BASF failed to disaggregate damages attributable to unlawful tying from those caused by lawful patent enforcement.
The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, citing:
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969), and
- Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251 (1946).
A plaintiff need only show that unlawful conduct was a “material or substantial cause” of injury.
Where unlawful and lawful conduct are intertwined, the defendant “bears the risk of the uncertainty which [its] own wrong has created.”
The jury was entitled to credit BASF’s expert testimony that disaggregation was infeasible.
Strategic Takeaways
Charles Gideon Korrell sees this case carrying several significant implications.
- Staple Goods Are a Dangerous Lever. If a component has substantial noninfringing uses, tying it to patent licenses is high-risk. The § 271(d) safe harbor evaporates.
- Internal Records Matter. Ingevity’s own spreadsheets and memos proved decisive. Internal “end use” designations can become antitrust evidence years later.
- Expert Silence Is Costly. Ingevity offered no technical expert to refute suitability for air-intake systems. The absence of rebuttal evidence allowed the jury to accept BASF’s narrative.
- Immunity Arguments Must Be Preserved. The Federal Circuit’s forfeiture holding underscores the importance of maintaining consistent legal theories from summary judgment through appeal.
- Damages Models Need Not Be Perfect. When unlawful tying affects price, access, and competitive positioning simultaneously, courts may permit aggregated damages models.
The Mooted Patent Invalidity Issue
The district court had earlier granted summary judgment invalidating the ’844 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). The Federal Circuit did not reach that issue.
Because the jury’s tying verdict rendered the patent unenforceable—and the patent expired during appeal—the invalidity question was moot.
Broader Implications for Licensing Strategy
Charles Gideon Korrell believes that for companies operating in vertically integrated supply chains—automotive, industrial filtration, semiconductors, biotech reagents—the message is clear:
- Conditioning licenses on exclusive purchases of staple components can trigger Sherman Act liability.
- Patent enforcement communications are protected; commercial tying conduct is not.
- Section 271(d) is a shield only when the tied product is truly nonstaple.
This opinion reinforces the long-standing principle that patent rights define the boundary of lawful exclusion—and that stepping beyond that boundary can transform intellectual property leverage into antitrust exposure.
The Federal Circuit’s analysis carefully harmonizes patent misuse doctrine, contributory infringement law, and antitrust tying jurisprudence without expanding immunity doctrines beyond established precedent.
For practitioners structuring licensing programs, careful product classification analysis and clean separation of patent rights from commercial supply obligations are essential.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp. stands as a powerful reminder that the line between aggressive patent licensing and unlawful tying is policed not just by misuse doctrine—but by federal antitrust law itself.