"The Federal Circuit has affirmed an $84.9 million antitrust patent-misuse judgment against a patent owner who conditioned licenses on exclusive purchase of unpatented products, finding that the products were "staple goods" with substantial non-infringing uses and therefore outside the Congressionally created safe harbor 35 U.S.C. § 271(d). Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 2024-1577 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2026) (Lourie, J.)."
"Tying cases have used to be much more common in patent litigation, but largely went dormant after the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006), which eliminated the presumption that patents confer market power. In this essay, I look at the particular dispute between Ingevity and BASF and also the historic trajectory of this sort of antitrust liability for improper extension of patent rights."
The Federal Circuit affirmed an $84.9 million antitrust patent-misuse judgment against a patent owner who conditioned licenses on exclusive purchase of unpatented products. The court concluded the tied products were "staple goods" with substantial non-infringing uses, placing them outside the Congressionally created safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. §271(d). The decision arose in Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 2024-1577 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2026) (Lourie, J.). Tying claims in patent litigation declined after the Supreme Court removed the presumption that patents confer market power in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink (2006). The dispute implicates antitrust liability for improper extension of patent rights and the historic trajectory of tying doctrine.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]