Product2 publishers3 min readPublished
Taction wins a $5.7 billion verdict against Apple over the haptic part in iPhones and Apple Watches
Taction Technology won a $5.7 billion jury verdict against Apple over the Taptic Engine, the haptic part in Apple Watch since 2014. The jury found no willful infringement, so judging patent risk by whether anyone copied is the wrong test for hardware teams.
The Product Desk · Product desk
What happened
- A federal jury in San Diego found Apple infringed two claims in one of Taction's two haptics patents and one claim in the other.
- Taction, which filed suit in 2021, had accused Apple of reverse-engineering the technology from two Kannon gaming headsets.
- The Taptic Engine reached the iPhone with the 6s and 6s Plus in 2015, replacing the older vibration motor.
- Taction is a California company that says its Transporter Technology powers the Corsair HS60 Haptic headphones.
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- decision A clean freedom-to-operate review at design-in says little about a part still shipping years later, so teams have to pick which long-running components get a second review.
- exposure Claims drafted around a vibration module on a wearer's skin reached Apple's phone and watch haptics, so a patent search keyed to one product category can miss the holder that ends up in court.
- cost A dispute over a shipping part can take about five years to reach a jury, and the accused company carries an open liability on that part for the whole wait.
A message arrives and the watch taps the wrist. A press on an iPhone answers with a short buzz. Both come from the Taptic Engine, the hardware Apple uses for haptic feedback on notifications, button presses and other interactions [3]. Taction's two patents describe a "vibration module for applying vibrational tractions to a wearer's skin" [10]. According to The Verge, CNBC described both as "vibration-based, tactile transducer technology that helps users feel a device responding to their input" [9].
I think most hardware teams work from a simple model of patent risk. In that model, risk follows copying, and a part you designed yourself is safe. Taction gave the jury the copying story, with its reverse-engineering charge [7] and its argument that Apple was "capitalizing on Taction's innovation and success" [18]. The jury did not find willful infringement [6] and still awarded $5.7 billion [1].
Time adds to the exposure. Taction sued in 2021 [11], when the Taptic Engine had been in Apple Watch for about seven years [16]. Taction's lead counsel told CNBC: "We're happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights. Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming." [15]
Apple's spokesperson 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." [13] The spokesperson also 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." [14] The reports do not give Taction's revenue or headcount, and they do not show how the jury arrived at $5.7 billion.
This verdict matters most to the people who sign off parts, more than to Apple's lawyers. The test I would apply has two axes. The first is reach. A part can sit in one product, or it can sit in every unit across several lines, as the Taptic Engine does across Apple's watches and phones [19]. The second is search scope. A freedom-to-operate review can be run once at design-in against your own product's vocabulary, or it can be refreshed later against patents written for other products that use the same physical effect. A haptic headset is one example [12]. The corner that needs work holds parts that ship in every unit and were reviewed once, in their own category. I would re-run those reviews and leave single-product parts on their design-in clearance. That costs counsel hours and slows the sourcing calendar, but only for a short list of parts.
What to watch
- Apple's appeal, and whether the $5.7 billion survives Apple's argument that Taction's own trial testing showed the Taptic Engine is different.
- Post-trial filings that show how the jury built the $5.7 billion figure, the detail other device makers need to size their own exposure on shared parts.
- Whether Taction asserts the same two patents against other companies shipping wrist or phone haptics.