Apple challenges $5.7 billion haptic patent verdict, alleging damages were based on guesswork

The technology giant is asking a California federal judge to overturn a record-setting jury award to Taction Technology or order a new trial, disputing both the infringement findings and the evidentiary basis for damages.

Apple has asked a California federal judge to overturn a $5.72 billion jury verdict in a patent infringement dispute with Taction Technology over haptic-vibration technology used in iPhones and Apple Watches.

In a motion filed October 13, Apple argued that the damages award was unsupported by the evidence presented at trial and amounted to impermissible guesswork. The company is seeking judgment in its favor or, alternatively, a new trial. The motion challenges both the jury’s finding that Apple infringed two Taction patents and its decision to award $5,721,961,750 in damages.

The verdict, delivered September 25 in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, is the largest patent damages award in US history, according to reports on the case. However, the award remains subject to post-trial proceedings, and Apple is seeking to have it set aside.

Apple attacks the damages calculation

A central argument in Apple’s motion is that Taction failed to provide sufficient evidence from which the jury could calculate a reasonable royalty for the alleged infringement. Apple contends that Taction did not establish the value attributable to the patented technology and instead asked jurors to determine an appropriate royalty without a reliable evidentiary foundation.

The company also challenges the exclusion of Taction’s damages expert, whose analysis had been barred because of flaws in the methodology used to calculate royalties by reference to an earlier licensing agreement. According to Apple, the exclusion left Taction without the expert evidence needed to establish a defensible damages figure. Apple argues that the jury was consequently left to speculate about the appropriate amount.

The dispute highlights a fundamental issue in patent litigation: a damages award must have a reasonable evidentiary basis and cannot rest solely on a jury’s assessment of what seems appropriate.

A finding of infringement does not automatically establish the amount of compensation due. Patent owners must still support their proposed measure of damages with evidence that connects the award to the infringement and the value of the patented invention. Apple is asking the court to conclude that the evidence presented at trial did not meet that standard.

Technical evidence and infringement findings disputed

Apple is also challenging the jury’s infringement findings, arguing that Taction’s testing methodology failed to establish that the accused products met the requirements of the patent claims. The case concerns two US patents: US Patent No. 10,659,885 and US Patent No. 10,820,117. Both cover systems and methods for generating damped, electromagnetically actuated planar motion for audio-frequency vibrations.

The technology involves controlled physical vibrations that users can feel through electronic devices. Apple’s Taptic Engine generates haptic feedback in products including the iPhone and Apple Watch. Apple disputes Taction’s interpretation of how the patented technology operates. In particular, it challenges testing conducted by Taction’s expert, Dr. Oliver, arguing that the tests did not establish that the underlying transducer satisfied the relevant claim limitations.

Apple further contends that Taction’s infringement theory conflicts with the technical requirements described in the patents and raises questions about the validity of the claims. The jury found Apple liable for infringement of specified claims in both patents and rejected its invalidity defenses concerning the claims at issue. It did not find the infringement willful.

Apple’s latest arguments remain allegations in a post-trial motion. The judge has not yet ruled on whether the verdict should be overturned or a new trial ordered.

A case revived on appeal

Taction filed its lawsuit against Apple in 2021, alleging that the company’s Taptic Engine infringed its haptic-technology patents. Apple denied infringement and challenged the validity of the patents. In 2023, the district court granted summary judgment in Apple’s favor. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subsequently vacated that decision in August 2025, allowing the dispute to proceed to trial.

The September 2026 jury verdict followed that reversal. Although the jury found infringement, it did not find that Apple had acted willfully. That distinction matters under US patent law because willful infringement can support enhanced damages in appropriate circumstances. The jury’s finding of non-willfulness means the verdict did not establish the basis for such an enhancement.

The case now moves into a critical post-trial phase. The court must consider Apple’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, infringement, and damages before the litigation can progress toward a final judgment and any subsequent appeal.

What the ruling could mean for patent damages

The dispute highlights the importance of the evidence used to establish reasonable royalties in high-value patent litigation. The case illustrates the risks of relying on a damages theory that the court may consider insufficiently supported. For defendants, it demonstrates how post-trial motions can challenge not only the amount awarded but also the underlying infringement findings.

The scale of the verdict also makes the proceedings significant for companies assessing the potential financial exposure associated with technology patents. However, the jury’s award should not be treated as a settled measure of liability while Apple’s challenge remains unresolved.

The judge’s decision could preserve the award, require a reconsideration of damages, or result in a new trial. Any subsequent appeal could further affect whether Taction ultimately recovers the amount awarded by the jury.

← Back to News