Apple tells a judge Taction's $5.7 billion award for the Taptic Engine rests on guesswork
Apple asked a federal judge to overturn the $5.7 billion Taction verdict, saying Taction gave jurors no evidence of what its patents are worth. The verdict is not yet a final judgment, and the court has yet to decide whether it stands.
The Product Desk
What happened
- Before trial the court excluded Taction's damages expert's analysis over flaws in how royalties were calculated from an earlier licence, and the expert was later barred from testifying, Apple says.
- Apple says Taction asked jurors to "award a reasonable royalty that y'all think is appropriate."
- Before the award was announced, the judge told attorneys he was "not sure that the figure that appears on the verdict form is what the jury meant to convey," according to Apple's motion.
- Apple calls the infringement test of Taction's expert Dr. Oliver "rigged" and says it measured Apple's control system, not whether the hardware met the patents' requirements.
Why it matters
- exposure The $5.7 billion stays a live claim against a component in current iPhones and Apple Watches until the court rules on a verdict that is not yet a final judgment.
- constraint On Apple's account, Taction has to defend the figure without the expert analysis the court excluded, because Apple says no other evidence established what the patented technology was worth.
- decision Apple's fallback request gives the judge a middle path between upholding $5.7 billion and awarding nothing: one new trial on infringement, validity and damages together.
The buzz an iPhone gives and the tap an Apple Watch makes on a wrist come from the Taptic Engine, which 9to5Mac describes as the part that powers haptic feedback across Apple's devices [2]. Apple's motion calls the award "the largest patent verdict in history, by more than $3 billion" [5]. Taking that margin at face value, the previous record sits below $2.7 billion [16].
Taction told the jury it was "just looking for a reasonable royalty for its contribution," Apple's motion says, but "never offered evidence of what that contribution was worth" [7]. Apple says that left jurors "with no choice but to engage in impermissible guesswork on a massive scale" [8].
Both Taction patents describe a technology that produces consistent vibrations across frequencies, while Apple says its engine produces much stronger vibrations at some frequencies than at others [12]. Apple's filing says the only evidence of the transducer's actual output, Taction's pre-filing testing included, was introduced by Apple, and that those tests showed a "peaked response that Dr. Oliver conceded was not highly damped" [13].
If Taction's reading of its patents is accepted, Apple says, the claims would be invalid, because the test used to show infringement contradicts the one the patents describe and makes it impossible to tell what they cover [14].
The verdict is not yet formally entered as a final judgment, and the court will now consider whether to uphold it [3]. When the jury ruled, Apple said its technology was "fundamentally different" from what the patents cover and that it would appeal [4]. The 9to5Mac report does not include a response from Taction, so each argument above is Apple's.
For a component under claim on your own roadmap, we'd sort the case on two questions. One is whether the dollar figure was tied to evidence of what the feature is worth. The other is whether infringement was shown with the test the patent itself describes. Apple says the answer to both is no here, and it added a validity argument on top. Where both answers are yes, we'd budget for payment. Where both are no, we'd budget for reversal or a retrial. Where they split, we'd plan around the weaker answer.
What to watch
- The court's ruling on whether to uphold the $5.7 billion award, and whether the verdict is formally entered as a final judgment.
- Taction's response to Apple's motion, in particular what evidence it says tied a dollar figure to Apple's infringement.
- Whether Apple's announced appeal follows the ruling, and which of the damages, infringement or validity points it carries forward.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence35
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap
- Insufficient
- Incentives80
- Confidence55
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Apple filed a motion asking a federal judge to overturn a $5.7 billion verdict in a patent infringement suit brought by Taction Technology over the Taptic Engine used in iPhones and Apple Watches.
- [2]
The Taptic Engine currently powers haptic feedback across Apple's devices, according to 9to5Mac.
- [3]
The jury's verdict is not yet formally entered as a final judgment, and the court will now consider whether to uphold the $5.7 billion award.
- [4]
When the verdict came, Apple said it strongly disagreed, called the damages "entirely unsupported by the facts," said its technology was "fundamentally different" from what Taction's two patents cover, and announced plans to appeal.
- [5]
Apple's motion calls the $5.7 billion verdict "the largest patent verdict in history, by more than $3 billion."
- [6]
Before trial the court excluded the analysis of Taction's damages expert because of flaws in how the expert calculated royalties from a previous licensing agreement, and the expert was later barred from testifying altogether.
- [7]
Apple's motion says Taction told the jury it was "just looking for a reasonable royalty for its contribution," but "never offered evidence of what that contribution was worth."
- [8]
Apple says Taction's approach left jurors "with no choice but to engage in impermissible guesswork on a massive scale."
- [9]
Apple says Taction asked the jury to "award a reasonable royalty that y'all think is appropriate."
- [10]
Before the award was announced, the judge told attorneys he was "not sure that the figure that appears on the verdict form is what the jury meant to convey."
- [11]
Apple argues that Taction's technical expert Dr. Oliver relied on a "rigged" test, a new method developed for the lawsuit that measured how Apple's electronic control system could regulate the Taptic Engine's vibrations rather than whether the underlying hardware met the patents' requirements.
- [12]
Both Taction patents describe a technology designed to produce consistent vibrations across different frequencies; Apple argues its Taptic Engine produces much stronger vibrations at certain frequencies than at others.
- [13]
Apple's filing says the only evidence of the transducer's actual output, including Taction's pre-filing and infringement contentions testing, was introduced by Apple, and those tests showed a "peaked response that Dr. Oliver conceded was not highly damped."
- [14]
Apple argues that if Taction's interpretation of its patents is accepted, the claims would be invalid, because the testing method used to establish infringement contradicts the method described in the patents, making it impossible to determine what the patents cover.
- [15]
Apple asks the court to overturn the verdict, rule that Taction is entitled to no damages and find no infringement; alternatively it requests a new trial covering infringement, patent validity and damages.
- [16]
If the verdict beat the previous record by more than $3 billion, the previous record is below $2.7 billion.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- 9to5mac.comApple challenges Taction’s $5.7B patent verdict, says damages were based on ‘guesswork’
1 article · October 13, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.