IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Ingevity loses appeal for new trial in patent infringement, antitrust dispute with BASF, (Feb 11, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

At the core of this dispute, the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of judgment as a matter of law because BASF showed Ingevity honeycombs have actual and substantial non-infringing uses, making them staple goods.

Arguments about patent control over putatively non-staple goods and modified immunity failed to overcome a $28 million jury verdict and judgment for BASF Corp. (BASF) against carbon honeycomb competitor Ingevity Corp. (Ingevity), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both companies manufacture carbon honeycombs, an activated carbon structure that can be used to filter airborne pollutants in a variety of applications, including automobiles. The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court denial of judgment as a matter of law and upheld the jury verdict of antitrust liability and damages favoring BASF. Defendant-counterclaimant BASF showed that Ingevity honeycombs have actual and substantial non-infringing uses, which made them staple goods pertinent to the BASF patent misuse defense under the Patent Act. Ingevity also forfeited a good-faith immunity defense that materially differed from what it had argued below. As for the jury’s damages award, BASF only needed to show Ingevity conduct was a material or substantial cause of BASF damages; jury instructions were consistent with this materiality requirement; and the jury was free to reasonably credit testimony that disaggregation of damages was not possible (Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 24-1577 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2026)).

Background. Ingevity Corporation and Ingevity South Carolina, LLC (collectively, Ingevity) filed a patent suit against BASF alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE38,844 (the ‘844 Patent). The ‘844 Patent claimed a technology for reducing evaporative emissions in applications including carbon honeycombs.

In 2020, the court invalidated all asserted claims of the ‘844 Patent for prior invention. BASF filed counterclaims alleging ‘844 Patent tying and unlawful restraint of competition. The court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, and a jury ultimately found that Ingevity unlawfully tied ‘844 Patent licenses to carbon honeycomb sales and unlawfully interfered with BASF’s prospective business relationship with Kayser. Accordingly, the court awarded over $28 million to BASF on the BASF counterclaims. The court then determined Noerr-Pennington did not immunize Ingevity’s conduct.

Ingevity made a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial to the district court, but the court concluded the jury based all of its findings on substantial evidence.

Ingevity appealed, arguing the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury finding of unlawful tying under federal antitrust law. Ingevity advanced a theory of defense to antitrust liability and a separate theory of immunity from antitrust liability. Ingevity also challenged the jury’s antitrust damages award.

In applying de novo review to judgments as a matter of law, and abuse of discretion review to orders on motions for a new trial, the Federal Circuit affirmed Ingevity antitrust liability and the damages award and did not reach the remaining issues on appeal.

The crux of this appeal was whether BASF showed that Ingevity honeycombs have actual and substantial non-infringing uses, i.e., that they were staple goods pertinent to the BASF patent misuse defense under the Patent Act.

Misuse defense. The Federal Circuit rejected Ingevity arguments against the BASF patent misuse defense because the jury verdict rested on permissible inferences and credibility determinations that Ingevity honeycombs were in fact staple goods.

The jury was entitled to discount or reject conclusory and unsubstantiated testimony that, as Ingevity argued, it was “impossible” for its honeycombs to be used in air-intake systems. BASF offered testimony that its own honeycombs could be used in air-intake systems. There was also business record evidence of large-volume purchases permitting a reasonable inference that Ingevity honeycombs were actually used in air-intake systems.

The jury was free to consider the absolute volume of sales, recurrence over time, and practical feasibility in light of the technical evidence, to conclude that non-infringing uses were substantial. Ingevity did not argue that there was any error in the jury instruction about comparative evaluation. Substantial non-infringing uses meant the Ingevity honeycombs were staple goods, and consequently, Ingevity’s arguments against the BASF patent misuse defense failed.

Immunity. Next, the Federal Circuit agreed with BASF that the good-faith immunity defense Ingevity raised now materially differed from what it argued below. Ingevity forfeited this defense. Ingevity argued that actual tying was immune conduct because it had a good-faith belief its honeycombs were not staple goods, but it no longer made this argument in the alternative. The immunity argument now subsumed the patent-misuse issue. Ingevity did not regard its conduct as immune before it appealed.

At summary judgment, Ingevity based its immunity argument on patent enforcement activity. During colloquy, the district court categorically distinguished between unprotected tying conduct and protected patent enforcement communications. Ingevity contemporaneously responded it was arguing protected patent enforcement communications. That categorical distinction carried through trial and post-trial briefing, but the Federal Circuit perceived that Ingevity tried to erase it on appeal. Ingevity now argued that even if its honeycombs were staple goods, tying was still immune, but it could not now argue that tying conduct itself was immune despite the jury’s staple good finding.

The district court’s jury instruction about this expressly excluded immunity for tying and was reasonable and consistent with the parties’ agreed framing and governing law. At a minimum, the absence of any clear authority for Ingevity’s modified immunity theory, including any potential dispute about the scope of Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 202, 213 (1980), confirmed the proper course was not clear under current law. Any alleged error therefor fell far short of plain error warranting relief.

Damages. The court rejected the Ingevity argument for vacatur of the $28 million antitrust damages judgment. Ingevity argued BASF never disaggregated damages resulting from Ingevity’s unlawful conduct from those caused by Ingevity’s putatively lawful assertion of its patent rights.

The Federal Circuit noted, as the district court explained, that BASF did not need to show the accused conduct was the sole cause of its injury. BASF only needed to show it was a material or substantial cause. Jury instructions were consistent with this materiality requirement. Among other things, the jury heard BASF testimony that Ingevity conduct prevented BASF from selling honeycombs to canister makers for use in the vehicles of five automakers. Taken together, there was substantial evidence for the jury to find material causation.

The jury could also reasonably credit certain testimony that disaggregating damages was impossible given that the same exclusionary practices simultaneously affected price, access, and customer choice. Ingevity bore the risk of the uncertainty its own wrongful conduct created. Likewise, the jury was free to reject the testimony of Ingevity’s expert on this point. That jury rejection was particularly appropriate here because it heard testimony from experts on both sides that Ingevity’s proposed analysis did not necessarily account for the unlawful conduct at issue.

The Case is No. 24-1577.

Judge: Lourie, A.

Attorneys: Wes Earnhardt (Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP) for Ingevity Corp. Paul Alessio Mezzina (King & Spalding LLP) for BASF Corp.

Companies: Ingevity Corp.; BASF Corp.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews DelawareNews