backOur team secured a resounding victory for BASF Corporation in its antitrust suit against Ingevity Corporation. On February 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed the jury’s finding that Ingevity violated the antitrust laws and the resulting $84.9 million damage award, which with postjudgment interest now exceeds $96 million.
In 2018 Ingevity sued BASF alleging patent infringement by BASF’s “EvapTrap” carbon honeycombs, which can be used to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from automobile gas tanks. The team defeated Ingevity’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and based on information learned in discovery, brought counterclaims against Ingevity for antitrust violations and tortious interference with BASF’s business relationships. In November 2020, the district court ruled on summary judgment that Ingevity’s patent was invalid for prior invention, leaving only BASF’s counterclaims in the case.
In September 2021, following a seven-day trial, a jury found in favor of BASF on all its counterclaims. The jury found that Ingevity had unlawfully monopolized the market for carbon honeycombs used in automotive-emissions control by requiring customers wishing to license Ingevity’s patent to also purchase Ingevity’s unpatented carbon honeycombs and by locking customers into long-term exclusive agreements. The jury also found that Ingevity had intentionally interfered with a prospective business relationship between BASF and a customer. The jury awarded BASF $28.3 million in damages, which was automatically trebled under the antitrust laws to $84.9 million.
Ingevity opposed entry of judgment, arguing that its conduct was immune from liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine or the patent laws. The district court ruled in April 2023 that, as our team had argued, Ingevity’s immunity defenses involved factual issues that the jury had resolved in BASF’s favor. The court accordingly entered judgment in BASF’s favor in May 2023. Ingevity then moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. Following briefing and argument, in February 2024, the district court denied all of Ingevity’s post-trial motions. Ingevity then appealed to the Federal Circuit.
After briefing and oral argument, the Federal Circuit agreed with BASF across the board. It held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that carbon honeycombs are “staple goods” and thus not within the scope of Ingevity’s patent monopoly. It likewise rejected Ingevity’s attempts to overturn the damages award, holding that the opinions of BASF’s expert economist were supported by the facts presented at trial. The court also held that Ingevity’s novel immunity argument—which would have provided broad immunity for anticompetitive commercial conduct related to a patent—was unpreserved and unsupported by current law. Finally, the court held that there was no need to address patent validity because Ingevity’s conduct constituted patent misuse rendering its patent unenforceable.
The King & Spalding team included Tom Friel, Paul Mezzina, Chris Yook, Brian Eutermoser, Mikaela Stone, Angela Tarasi, Alex Kazam, and Nick Mecsas-Faxon.