BASF Corp. v. Ingevity Corp. — Federal Circuit Affirmed-in-Part, Vacated-in-Part & Remanded
BASF Corp. challenged the patentability of Ingevity Corp.'s US10323553B2, covering evaporative fuel vapor emission control systems, before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After 591 days, the Federal Circuit issued a split decision: affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding, with the appeal dismissed in part as the recorded basis of termination.
BASF challenges Ingevity's fuel vapor patent at the Federal Circuit
BASF Corp. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 8 November 2021 under Case No. 22-1129, challenging the patentability of US10323553B2 held by Ingevity Corp. The patent covers evaporative fuel vapor emission control systems — technology central to automotive emissions compliance. King & Spalding LLP represented BASF, while Ingevity was represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. The appeal arose as an invalidity/cancellation action.
The case closed on 22 June 2023. The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed in Part.' The docket order states the Federal Circuit's disposition as 'AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.' These two characterisations are presented as-is from the available record; the reader should reconcile them. The specific terms and the precise scope of which claims or issues were dismissed, affirmed, vacated, or remanded are not further disclosed in the available record.
The 591-day duration is consistent with the typical cadence of Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving inter partes review or similar proceedings. A split disposition of this kind — affirming some grounds, vacating others, and remanding — suggests the lower tribunal's analysis was partially upheld and partially found wanting, though the precise contours of that split are not disclosed in the public record. What remains unknown is whether any remanded issues have since been resolved at the tribunal below.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 591 days
591 days from filing to close — a moderately lengthy Federal Circuit appeal in a patentability dispute
US10323553B2 — Evaporative Fuel Vapor Emission Control Systems
Any company designing, manufacturing, or supplying evaporative fuel vapor emission control systems — including canister assemblies, activated carbon components, or integrated vehicle emissions systems — should assess exposure to US10323553B2. The partial vacatur and remand mean the claims landscape may shift following resolution of the remand proceedings. An FTO conducted now should be revisited once those proceedings conclude.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order — 'AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED' — reflects a differentiated review of the lower tribunal's patentability determinations. Under the applicable appellate standard, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. A vacatur signals the court identified reversible error on at least one ground; the remand instructs the tribunal below to address those issues anew. The recorded basis of termination separately notes the appeal was dismissed in part; the specific scope of each component is not further disclosed in the available record.
Federal Circuit's split ruling: what affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part means
What 'Affirmed-in-Part, Vacated-in-Part, Remanded' means
A split Federal Circuit disposition means the court found no reversible error in some portions of the lower ruling (affirmed), but identified legal or factual error in other portions sufficient to nullify them (vacated), sending those issues back for further proceedings (remanded). No single clean merits outcome results — the record also notes the appeal was dismissed in part, per the recorded basis of termination.
Split appellate dispositionIngevity retains partial validation — but faces remand uncertainty
The affirmed portion of the ruling supports Ingevity's position on at least some challenged grounds, reinforcing the enforceability of US10323553B2 to that extent. However, the vacated-in-part element means certain aspects of the lower decision no longer stand, and the remand introduces continued uncertainty over the patent's full scope and validity. The specific claims or issues that survived are not disclosed in the available record.
Partial validation, remand pendingBASF achieves partial success — but does not invalidate the patent outright
BASF secured a vacatur on at least some issues, preventing Ingevity from relying on those aspects of the lower ruling. The remand gives BASF further opportunity to press its invalidity arguments before the originating tribunal. The affirmed-in-part outcome, however, means BASF did not succeed on all grounds, and the patent survives in at least partial form at this stage.
Partial success, remand opportunityFuel vapor emission IP landscape remains contested
A split Federal Circuit ruling on a fuel vapor emission control patent signals that patentability questions in this space remain live and legally complex. Competitors and suppliers operating in evaporative emissions technology should monitor the remand proceedings closely. Until the remanded issues are resolved, the enforceability perimeter of US10323553B2 is not fully settled, which may affect licensing negotiations and FTO analyses in the sector.
Ongoing enforcement uncertaintyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BASF Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ingevity, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Eutermoser | Attorney | Counsel for BASF Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell | Attorney | Counsel for BASF Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mikaela Stone | Attorney | Counsel for BASF Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Alessio Mezzina | Attorney | Counsel for BASF Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing BASF Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Buroker | Attorney | Counsel for Ingevity, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Ingevity, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Quinn Dominguez | Attorney | Counsel for Ingevity, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel Ryan Scharn | Attorney | Counsel for Ingevity, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vladimir J. Semendyai | Attorney | Counsel for Ingevity, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ingevity, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in evaporative fuel vapor emission control technology
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from BASF v. Ingevity — tracking portfolio activity, filing trends, and whitespace in evaporative emissions control technology.
Ingevity's activated carbon patent portfolio — depth and trajectory
Ingevity has built a concentrated IP position in activated carbon-based evaporative emission control. Tracking their filing activity post-2018 — when US10323553B2 issued — can reveal whether the company is expanding claim scope, filing continuations, or pursuing adjacent technology areas such as enhanced carbon formulations or integrated canister designs. This litigation signals Ingevity actively enforces this portfolio.
Portfolio depth — Ingevity emissions IPEvaporative emission control patent filing trends globally
Regulatory tightening on vehicular hydrocarbon emissions — including CARB LEV III and Euro 7 standards — is driving R&D investment in evaporative control canisters, low-emission carbon materials, and hybrid adsorption systems. Patent filing activity in this space from OEMs, Tier 1 suppliers, and materials companies has intensified since 2018. Mapping this landscape identifies where competitive IP clusters are forming.
Filing trends — evaporative emissionsBASF's IP position in emission control materials
BASF is a major chemicals and catalysis company with its own materials IP, including catalytic converter and emission abatement technologies. Assessing BASF's patent filings in evaporative emission control and activated carbon adsorption reveals whether their challenge to Ingevity's patent is backed by a competing IP position or primarily a freedom-to-operate play. This informs how the competitive dynamic is likely to evolve post-remand.
BASF emissions IP postureAdjacent whitespace: next-generation low-emission canister design
Litigation around US10323553B2 highlights claim concentration in conventional evaporative emission canister architecture. Adjacent whitespace may exist in solid-state adsorption media, multi-stage vapor trapping systems, and integration with electrified drivetrains — where regulatory requirements are evolving but patent density remains lower. R&D teams can exploit this space without entering the contested claim perimeter of the Ingevity portfolio.
Whitespace — next-gen emission controlSimilar Federal Circuit patent appeals in evaporative emissions technology
Explore Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving evaporative fuel vapor emission control patents and activated carbon technology comparable to BASF v. Ingevity.
What this case signals for the emissions control IP landscape
A Federal Circuit split on fuel vapor emission patents signals that validity challenges in this space remain viable and technically contested.
Split decisions leave enforceability windows open for competitors
When the Federal Circuit vacates-in-part and remands, the patent in question does not enjoy the full presumption of settled validity. Companies competing in evaporative fuel emission control technology should treat US10323553B2 as a live risk requiring continued monitoring rather than a fully settled right.
Remand proceedings are a second chance for invalidity arguments
The remand in this case means the originating tribunal must revisit at least some of BASF's invalidity contentions. Third parties with FTO concerns around this patent should track the remand docket — the outcome there may materially alter the claims that remain enforceable.
BASF v Ingevity — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split disposition: affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed in Part.' The specific claims or issues corresponding to each component of the ruling are not disclosed in the available public record.
The patent at issue is US10323553B2 (application US15/676734), held by Ingevity Corp. It covers evaporative fuel vapor emission control systems — technology used to capture hydrocarbon vapors from vehicle fuel systems, a regulated area under EPA and CARB standards. BASF challenged the patent's validity in this appeal.
A vacatur-in-part means the Federal Circuit nullified certain portions of the lower tribunal's ruling, finding reversible error on those issues. Remand instructs the originating tribunal to re-examine those issues. For US10323553B2, this means the patent's full enforceability scope is not yet settled — the remand proceedings may alter which claims remain valid.
The appeal was filed on 8 November 2021 and closed on 22 June 2023, a duration of 591 days. This is broadly consistent with the typical timeline for Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving invalidity or cancellation actions.
BASF Corp. (appellant) was represented by King & Spalding LLP, with counsel including Brian Eutermoser, Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell, Mikaela Stone, and Paul Alessio Mezzina. Ingevity Corp. (appellee) was represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, with counsel including Brian Buroker, Brian Yang, Katherine Quinn Dominguez, Nathaniel Ryan Scharn, and Vladimir J. Semendyai.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.