Jury Awards Taction $5.7 Billion in Apple Haptics Patent Case
publishers 20articles 21first reported 26 Sep, 03:42 UTCdeveloping since 26 Sep · 4 editions
A federal jury in San Diego awarded Taction Technology more than $5.7 billion after finding that Apple infringed claims in two patents covering haptic-feedback technology used in iPhones and Apple Watches.
The verdict, returned Friday after parts of two days of deliberations, concerns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117. The patents describe tactile transducers that generate vibrations perceptible through touch. Taction alleged that Apple’s Taptic Engine used its inventions without a license. The jury found infringement but determined that it was not willful.
Apple disputed both the finding and the damages award. The company said its Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology and that testing presented at trial supported its position. “Apple does not use Taction’s technology, and we will appeal,” the company said.
Taction’s lawyer welcomed the verdict, saying the company had waited five and a half years for the case to reach trial.
Taction filed the lawsuit in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. A judge dismissed the infringement claims in 2023, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived the case in 2025 after finding errors involving the exclusion of expert testimony and the interpretation of patent claims. The case then returned to the district court for trial.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 5 articles, 5 with the publisher's own text; 5 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 30 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 20
- Source articles
- 21
- Given to the writer
- 5, 5 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 5
- This version written
- 30 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →