Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2026)

The Federal Circuit affirmed a $28 million antitrust jury verdict against Ingevity for unlawfully tying patent licenses to purchases of its unpatented carbon honeycombs. The decision clarifies that tying staple goods (products with substantial non-infringing uses) cannot be immunize under § 271(d) or the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and underscores the risk patentees face when conditioning patent licenses on product purchases.

Ingevity tied licenses to its RE38,844 patent to the purchase of its unpatented carbon honeycomb products, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s determination that Ingevity’s honeycombs were staple goods (i.e., products with actual and substantial non‑infringing uses) based sales records showing thousands of units sold for non‑infringing air‑intake applications. Because the products qualified as staple articles, Ingevity could not invoke § 271(d)’s patent‑misuse safe harbor to justify conditioning patent licenses on exclusive purchases of its honeycombs.

The Court rejected Ingevity’s attempt to recast its conduct as mere patent enforcement communications protected by the patent laws or the Noerr‑Pennington doctrine. The jury received explicit instructions that patent‑enforcement communications could not support liability, and its unlawful‑tying verdict necessarily reflected a finding of commercial coercion, not protected enforcement activity. The Circuit held Ingevity forfeited its newly reframed immunity theory on appeal and no authority extends immunity to tying arrangements involving staple goods.

Finally, the Court concluded BASF presented sufficient evidence that Ingevity’s tying conduct materially caused its lost‑sales injury. The jury reasonably credited BASF’s expert who testified that disaggregating lawful from unlawful conduct was impracticable given the integrated nature of the exclusionary strategy.

Bottom line: The decision reinforces that patentees face antitrust exposure when they leverage a patent to compel purchases of staple articles and § 271(d) and the Noerr‑Pennington doctrine do not shield tying arrangements that extend beyond protected patent‑enforcement activity.

For additional information, please contact:

Ali Warr at [email protected].