InIngevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 2024-1577 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed an $85 million trebled jury verdict against Ingevity for unlawful tying under the Sherman Act. Ingevity initially sued BASF for infringing U.S. Patent No. RE38,844 ("the '844 Patent") but the district court determined that the patent was invalid on summary judgment leaving only BASF's counterclaims for antitrust and tortious interference for a jury trial.
The jury found that Ingevity illegally tied licenses of the '844 patent to purchase agreements for Ingevity's unpatented air filter, a staple good with significant non-infringing use. After trial, Ingevity moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing that (1) patent owners have a statutory right to control non-staple goods capable only of infringing use in a patented invention, even if it would suppress competition in the market for an unpatented commodity per the patent misuse defense under 35 U.S.C. § 271(d), (2) Noerr-Pennington immunity applied, and (3) the jury failed to disaggregate damages between lawful and unlawful conduct and that BASF's damages model was speculative. The district court denied Ingevity's motions. Ingevity appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. First, the Court determined that § 271(d) did not apply because the jury heard sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Ingevity's filter was a staple good with substantial non-infringing use. Second, the Court determined that Ingevity forfeited its argument under Noerr-Pennington because it materially changed its argument on appeal by abandoning its prior argument that only patent enforcement actions—not commercial tying—were immune from antitrust liability. Third, the Court determined that BASF had demonstrated that Ingevity's illegal conduct was a material cause of BASF's injury, and that the jury permissibly credited BASF's damages expert's testimony on the impossibility of disaggregation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
