Invest1 publisher2 min readPublished
Seven jurors priced two Taction patents in Apple's Taptic Engine at $5.7 billion
Federal jurors ordered Apple to pay Taction Technology more than $5.7 billion over two haptic patents used in its Taptic Engine. Apple will appeal what Reuters calls the largest US verdict of its kind, so Taction holds a contested claim for now.
The Investor · Invest desk
What happened
- A federal jury ordered Apple on Friday to pay more than $5.7 billion to Taction Technology, a San Diego company, over haptic feedback in iPhones and Apple Watches.
- Jurors found that Apple's Taptic Engine infringed two Taction patents covering the use of vibrations to create tactile sensations on electronic devices.
- The jury also found that Apple's infringement was neither deliberate nor knowing.
- Reuters reported that the award is the largest verdict of its kind in the US to date.
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint By saying it does not use Taction's technology at all, Apple has left itself little public room to take a licence on the two patents while its appeal runs.
- cost Taction's payout now waits on appellate review, so the award is worth less to Taction today than its face value once further delay and the risk of reversal are counted.
- precedent If the record award survives appeal, it becomes the reference figure for patent holders suing hardware makers over components; a cut on appeal would put a smaller number in its place.
Split evenly between the two patents in suit, Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, the award comes to about $2.85 billion a patent [5][1]. Seven jurors set that figure after two days of deliberation, at the end of a trial that began on 14 September [6].
The accused component dates to 2014, when Apple introduced the Taptic Engine alongside the Apple Watch [9]. According to AppleInsider, it uses a linear resonant actuator to produce taps, vibrations and a simulated heartbeat [9]. Taction sued seven years after that debut [3][2]. "We're happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights," Lance Yang, a Quinn Emanuel partner and Taction's lead counsel, told CNBC [10]. "Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming," he said [11].
Apple's statement to CNBC contests the result on two separate grounds. On the verdict and the money, the company said: "While we thank the jury for their consideration, we strongly disagree with today's verdict and the damages awarded, which are entirely unsupported by the facts" [7]. On infringement, it said: "Apple's Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction's technology, which Taction's own testing of Apple's products confirmed during trial. Apple does not use Taction's technology, and we will appeal" [8].
The report describes Taction only as a San Diego company [1] and does not compare the award with Apple's cash or earnings. That leaves two things unmeasured: how much leverage the verdict hands smaller patent holders, and how heavily the liability sits on Apple.
The appeal can end with the award intact, with the infringement finding kept and the damages reduced, or with infringement overturned and the award gone. In my view the $5.7 billion is the weaker half of the verdict. It is a record by Reuters' account [2], Apple singled out the damages in its statement [7], and the jury reached the figure without finding that Apple infringed deliberately or knowingly [4]. The evidence against that view is the case's own history. The Federal Circuit revived the case after Apple won its 2023 dismissal [3], and the jury found infringement after hearing Apple's argument about Taction's own testing [5][8]. If the appeals court affirms the full amount, this view is wrong.
What to watch
- Apple's appeal filing, and whether it attacks the damages figure separately from the infringement finding.
- Any settlement or licence talks between Apple and Taction, which would sit awkwardly with Apple's statement that it does not use the technology.
- How the appeals court treats the size of the award, given that the Federal Circuit has already revived this case once.