The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →A federal jury awarded Taction Technology $5,721,961,750 after finding that Apple infringed claims in two haptics patents. But that is a jury verdict, not a final bill—and the reported verdict form does not show how the jury calculated the sum. That missing calculation is the larger royalty question at the center of the case.
Why did Apple get hit with a $5.7 billion patent verdict?
In Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00812, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found that Apple infringed claims 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 and claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,117. It awarded Taction $5,721,961,750 in damages adequate to compensate it, according to specialist legal publication Patent Litigator’s account of the verdict. The jury also rejected Apple’s invalidity defenses, that account reports.
The patents concern tactile transducers that produce vibrations a person can feel. Taction accused Apple’s Taptic Engine in iPhones and Apple Watches. The verdict concerns the specific patent claims and issues submitted to this jury; it is not a finding that every Apple product or every Taptic Engine implementation infringes.
The jury found that Apple’s infringement was not willful. The award therefore should not be described as a willful-infringement award.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors#1 Best Overall
Is Apple actually going to pay $5.7 billion?
Not on the basis of the verdict alone. As of the September 29, 2026 order reported by Patent Litigator, the court had not entered judgment. Apple said it would appeal, and Burford Capital—a litigation-finance company with a financial entitlement tied to the case—said on September 28 that the verdict was not a final judgment or cash proceeds it had received.
Burford cautioned that post-trial proceedings, appellate review, enforcement, collection, and possible settlement could change the outcome; it said the ultimate recovery could be materially lower or zero. A jury award is not the same as money paid or collected.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
How did the jury calculate the royalty?
The reported verdict form gives one aggregate damages figure. It does not allocate that figure by patent, product, or time period, or explain the calculation. The reviewed reporting does not establish a per-device amount, royalty percentage, or patent-by-patent split. Those figures cannot be reliably derived from the headline award.
The record, as summarized by Patent Litigator, makes the unanswered question especially important. Before trial, the court excluded reasonable-royalty opinions from Taction damages expert Patrick F. Kennedy because they depended on technical-apportionment opinions the court had also excluded. The court excluded opinions by Apple damages expert Julie Knox that relied on valuations of Taction as a company. A later supplemental report was permitted within narrower limits.
In a September 23 Rule 50(a) motion, Apple argued that Taction had not presented a reasonable-royalty rate from its license with Corsair for the HS60 headset, or evidence supporting an apportioned royalty tied to the patented contribution. Apple also challenged the relevance of evidence about ferrofluid and Taptic Engine hardware costs. Those were Apple’s arguments, not findings that the jury adopted. The reported verdict does not reveal how jurors assessed the evidence or arrived at their single figure.
What are Taction’s haptics patents?
They cover technology related to tactile transducers: components that generate vibrations or other motion perceptible through touch. Taction alleged that Apple used infringing technology in Taptic Engine hardware in certain iPhones and Apple Watches. The claims at issue were specific numbered claims in two U.S. patents, rather than a general right over all haptic feedback or vibration technology.
Rank #4
How did the case reach a jury?
Taction filed suit in 2021. In 2023, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement after striking opinions from Taction’s infringement expert and construing a “highly damped output” limitation to require mechanical damping and a Q-factor below 1.5.
The Federal Circuit vacated that ruling and sent the case back in 2025. As Patent Litigator described the appellate decision, the court found that the expert-opinion ruling improperly relied on an unwritten requirement in the local patent rules. It also held that the claims were not limited to mechanical damping or a Q-factor below 1.5, while retaining the requirement for highly damped output. The case then proceeded to the September 2026 trial.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
What happens after a patent jury verdict?
Post-trial motions can ask the trial court to alter the result or order a new trial; an appeal can ask the Federal Circuit to review legal issues. A judgment and any eventual payment depend on what happens in those proceedings, and enforcement or settlement may also affect recovery. In this case, the September 29 order, as reported by Patent Litigator, set October 16, 2026 as the deadline for Apple to file Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 post-trial motions. That is a reported deadline, not confirmation of what the parties later filed or what the court decided.
The parties’ public reactions reflect their opposing positions, not a resolution of the legal or damages questions. Reuters quoted Apple saying, “Apple’s Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology, which Taction’s own testing of Apple’s products confirmed during trial,” and, “Apple does not use Taction’s technology, and we will appeal.” Reuters quoted Taction attorney Lance Yang saying the jury had “vindicated its patent rights.” Bloomberg Law quoted Taction attorney Tigran Guledjian of Quinn Emanuel describing the trial as “a long time coming.”
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
