That Tie Could Cost Millions
A Costly Lesson in “Tying” Unpatented Products
In a decision handed down on February 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit sent a clear message to patent holders that requiring the purchase of unpatented products for access to patented products remains an anticompetitive practice. In the case of Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., the court upheld a $84.9 million antitrust judgment against Ingevity.
The dispute centered on a practice known as “tying,” where Ingevity allegedly forced customers to buy its unpatented carbon filtering products—specifically “honeycombs” used in automotive systems—to get a license for its patented technology. While Ingevity argued this was a necessary step to prevent patent infringement, the jury and the appellate court did not find this persuasive and sided with BASF. The court also found that because the filtering products were “staple goods” with significant non-infringing uses, they did not fall under the legal safe harbor that usually protects patent owners.
Why This Case Matters for Patent and Commercial Strategy
This ruling is a reminder that a company using its patent portfolio to gain leverage in the broader market can still engage in anticompetitive practices. For businesses, this means that “tying” a patent license to the purchase of common, unpatented items can run afoul of antitrust laws. This also means that your competitors requiring their customers to purchase common, unpatented products in order to purchase patented products may be engaging in anticompetitive conduct.
Understanding the line between protecting your invention and overstepping into illegal market control is more critical than ever for maintaining a competitive—and legal—edge. It is also important to identify when your competitors may be engaging in illegal, anticompetitive practices that are unfairly diminishing your ability to compete in the market.
Contact Taylor & Edelstein to review your patent strategy and how your competitors may be unfairly using their intellectual property.