Jury Orders Apple to Pay More Than $5.7 Billion in Haptics Patent Case
publishers 23articles 24first 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 technology used to produce tactile feedback.
The verdict, returned Friday after parts of two days of deliberations, concerned U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117. Taction alleged that Apple’s Taptic Engine, used in iPhones and Apple Watches to generate taps and vibrations, incorporated its tactile-transducer technology without a license. Jurors found infringement but determined that it was not willful.
Apple said it strongly disagreed with both the verdict and the damages award and plans to appeal. The company said its Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology and that testing presented at trial supported its position. Taction’s lawyers welcomed the decision, saying the verdict vindicated the company’s patent rights.
Taction filed the lawsuit in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. A federal judge dismissed its infringement claims in 2023, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later revived the case after finding errors involving expert testimony and patent interpretation.
The litigation received financing connected to Burford Capital. Reuters reported that Burford said it would be entitled to $1.4 billion from the verdict.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 6 articles, 5 with the publisher's own text; 6 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 24 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 23
- Source articles
- 24
- Given to the writer
- 6, 5 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 6
- This version written
- 24 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 →