February 27, 2026
Authored and Edited by Ryan V. McDonnell; *Jessica M. Ott
In Ingevity 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.
*Jessica M. Ott is a Law Clerk at Finnegan
Copyright © 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.