In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit kept an $85 million judgment against Ingevity, a company that tried to defend itself with a patent‑misuse argument. The dispute began when Ingevity sold its carbon‑filtering technology for cars and bundled the license with other items that were not protected by patents. BASF, the company that sued Ingevity for patent infringement, counter‑sued, claiming the bundle was an unfair tactic.

A three‑judge panel confirmed that Ingevity’s strategy was anticompetitive. The court explained that the patent‑misuse defense only works if the bundled items are “non‑staple, ” meaning they have no useful purpose outside of the patent. Ingevity’s filters, however, could be used in regular air‑intake systems that do not rely on the patent. The court said this evidence was enough for a jury to find the filters were staple goods.

Ingevity argued that customers never used the filters in other ways. The judges pointed to sales records showing purchases for induction systems, which showed that buyers intended those uses. Because of this, the court rejected Ingevity’s claim and upheld the jury’s decision.

The original damages were $28. 3 million, but a lower court increased them to almost $85 million. The appellate court did not touch that figure. It also decided not to examine whether the patent itself was valid, because it had expired in 2022.

The case shows that courts are careful when companies try to force buyers into buying unrelated products as a way to protect patents. It also limits how often the patent‑misuse defense can be used in antitrust cases.

Patent Tying Fight Ends in Big Loss for Ingevity

Actions