Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2025

The following arguments will be available live to the public, both in-person and through online audio streaming. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.

Thursday, December 4, 2025, 10:00 A.M.

Versata Software, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2024-1140, Courtroom 402, Panel H

This trade secret and contract dispute began when Ford decided not to renew a licensing contract with Versata. Under the contract, Ford paid Versata $10 million annually to use Versata’s car configuration software. Ford later developed its own software and did not renew the license. Versata sued Ford for misappropriating Versata’s trade secrets in developing Ford’s software and for breaching the contract between the parties. Before trial, Versata presented an unjust-enrichment damages theory for trade-secret misappropriation, seeking $134 million per year based on Ford’s cost savings. The district court rejected that theory and found it would confer upon Versata a windfall in view of Ford’s $10 million annual payment under the previous license. At trial, Versata presented one of its reasonable-royalty damages theories (the other two were rejected by the court).

The jury found Ford liable for both trade-secret misappropriation and breach-of-contract and awarded damages for both. The district court upheld the jury’s liability findings but reduced the jury’s trade-secret-misappropriation damages award from $22 million to zero and the breach-of-contract damages award from $82 million to $3. Versata appealed.

On appeal, Versata argues that it is free to pursue unjust-enrichment damages for trade-secret misappropriation and that the district court erred in rejecting its theory simply based on the parties’ licensing history. Versata also argues that the court erred in restricting its reasonable-royalty theories because the royalty should account for all rights misappropriated, not just the software under the previous license. On the damages reductions, Versata contends that ample evidence supported the jury’s calculations, including evidence that it would have taken Ford roughly the same amount of time as it had taken Versata to develop the misappropriated trade secrets and that the jury’s breach-of-contract damages reflected what Ford would have to pay if it renewed the license.

Ford responds that the district court properly excluded Versata’s unjust-enrichment theory because it would result in a windfall for Versata significantly greater than the fees Ford paid under the previous license. Ford further argues that the court properly limited Versata’s reasonable-royalty theories to the one theory keyed to the parties’ licensing history. On the damages reductions, Ford maintains that the reductions were proper because, among other reasons, Versata failed to offer the jury a method to estimate damages for the three trade secrets found misappropriated, and Versata’s contract damages theory failed to deduct performance costs from the total contract price.

Friday, December 5, 2025, 10:00 A.M.

Ingevity Corporation v. BASF Corporation, No. 2024-1577, Courtroom 201, Panel I

This case involves patent infringement and antitrust disputes between Ingevity and BASF. Ingevity sued BASF for infringing its U.S. Patent No. RE38,844, which relates to its fuel vapor canister honeycombs used in automotive evaporative emission control systems. BASF raised antitrust counterclaims, contending that in connection with its honeycomb sales, Ingevity engaged in unlawful tying by conditioning implied licenses to the ’844 patent on the purchase of Ingevity’s honeycombs and unlawful exclusive dealing through several supply agreements with its customers. BASF also counterclaimed that Ingevity tortiously interfered with a prospective business relationship between BASF and a third party. The district court found the ’844 patent invalid and upheld a jury verdict in BASF’s favor on its antitrust and tortious interference counterclaims. Ingevity appealed.

On appeal, among other issues, Ingevity challenges the district court’s antitrust ruling. Ingevity argues that it may lawfully control the sale of its honeycombs because the honeycombs lack actual, substantial non-infringing uses and therefore qualify as non-staple goods. According to Ingevity, the non-infringing use identified by BASF—use in automotive air-intake systems—is mechanically impossible. Ingevity maintains that the sales entries coding honeycomb sales for air-intake uses (which BASF relied on to show non-infringing use) were typographical errors, and they accounted for less than 0.017% of total sales and therefore cannot constitute a “substantial” use. Ingevity further contends that, even assuming the honeycombs are staple goods, Ingevity has a good-faith immunity defense against the antitrust claims under patent law and the First Amendment. According to Ingevity, because it believed in good faith that the honeycombs were non-staple goods, its good-faith patent enforcement conduct is immune from antitrust liability.

BASF responds that the jury’s staple-good finding was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. BASF points to Ingevity’s sales entries listing more than 18,000 honeycombs sold for air-intake uses, and it argues the jury was free to find substantial non-infringing uses based on that total amount (rather than the percentage). BASF also argues that Ingevity failed to preserve its immunity argument, and that the argument is meritless because the immunity defense is limited to communications about patent rights and does not extend to Ingevity’s anticompetitive tying and exclusive dealing conduct.

In addition to the antitrust disputes, the appeal also involves Ingevity’s challenges to the district court’s ruling on invalidity of the ’844 patent, BASF’s tortious interference claim, and damages.