The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision February 11, 2026, in the patent infringement dispute between chemical companies Ingevity Corporation and BASF Corporation, resolving a case that began in 2018 in Delaware federal court.
Ingevity Corporation and Ingevity South Carolina, LLC sued BASF Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent RE38,844. The patent dispute centered on claims 1, 4, 11, 18, 19, 24, 43 and 48 of the reissue patent.
The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity on the asserted claims of the patent in 2020, dealing a significant blow to Ingevity's infringement allegations. Judge Richard G. Andrews presided over the case in the District of Delaware.
The litigation took an additional turn when the district court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on BASF's antitrust and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied both parties' motions, allowing those claims to proceed to jury trial.
At trial, the jury reached findings that favored BASF on the antitrust claims. The jury found that Ingevity had engaged in unlawful tying and awarded damages accordingly. This represented a significant victory for BASF, which had defended against the original patent infringement claims while pursuing its own counterclaims.
Following the jury verdict, Ingevity attempted to challenge the outcome through post-trial motions. The company filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial. However, the district court denied both motions in 2024, upholding the jury's findings against Ingevity.
The case then proceeded to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from district courts. The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Cunningham, with Judge Lourie authoring the opinion.
Ingevity was represented by attorneys from Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, with Wes Earnhardt arguing the appeal. Earnhardt was assisted by Sharonmoyee Goswami. BASF assembled a larger legal team from King & Spalding LLP, with Paul Alessio Mezzina arguing for the defendant-appellee. The BASF legal team included Alexander Kazam, Christopher Yook from Washington, D.C., Brian Eutermoser from Denver, Colorado, and Thomas Friel from Palo Alto, California.
The patent at issue, U.S. Patent RE38,844, is a reissue patent, which typically indicates that the original patent was surrendered and reissued to correct defects in the specification or drawings, or to add or cancel claims. Reissue patents often involve complex validity questions, as they must satisfy specific statutory requirements under patent law.
The chemical industry frequently sees patent disputes between major corporations over process technologies and chemical formulations. Both Ingevity and BASF are significant players in the specialty chemicals market, making this dispute noteworthy for the industry.
Ingevity Corporation, based in North Charleston, South Carolina, focuses on specialty chemicals and high-performance carbon materials. The company operates through two main segments: Performance Materials and Performance Chemicals. BASF Corporation is the North American affiliate of German chemical giant BASF SE, one of the world's largest chemical companies.
The outcome of this case reflects the challenges patent holders face in federal court, where invalidity defenses have become increasingly successful. The Federal Circuit's expertise in patent law makes its decisions particularly influential in shaping patent enforcement strategies across industries.
The antitrust counterclaims that BASF successfully pursued highlight how patent litigation can expand beyond traditional infringement issues. Antitrust law and patent law intersect when patent holders allegedly abuse their patent rights to engage in anticompetitive conduct, such as unlawful tying arrangements.
Unlawful tying occurs when a company with market power in one product conditions the sale of that product on the purchase of a separate product. The jury's finding that Ingevity engaged in such conduct suggests the company may have leveraged its patent position inappropriately in the marketplace.
The case demonstrates the evolving landscape of intellectual property litigation, where defendants increasingly assert counterclaims challenging not just patent validity but also the patent holder's business practices. This trend reflects courts' willingness to consider the broader competitive context in which patent rights are exercised.
For the chemical industry, this decision may influence how companies structure licensing arrangements and market their patented technologies. The intersection of patent rights and antitrust law continues to evolve, with courts carefully scrutinizing conduct that might extend patent monopolies beyond their intended scope.
The Federal Circuit's decision resolves a case that spanned multiple years and involved complex questions of patent validity, infringement, and antitrust law, representing the type of high-stakes intellectual property dispute common among major chemical companies competing in specialized markets.