Taction Technology alleges in federal court in San Diego that Apple’s Taptic Engine, used in iPhones and Apple Watches, infringes two of its tactile transducer patents. On September 25, 2026, a jury found that Apple infringed both patents and awarded $5.72B, but found the infringement was not willful. Apple’s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict, which Taction opposed on November 3, 2026, and Taction’s motion to increase the award are pending.
Latest development Nov 3, 2026
On November 3, 2026, Taction Technology opposed Apple’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the $5.72B verdict. Taction argues that Apple’s request to pay zero damages is unsupported.
Why it matters
The case will decide whether a $5.72B patent damages award over the Taptic Engine, a component in iPhones and Apple Watches, survives post-trial motions and any Federal Circuit appeal. It will also determine whether Taction recovers ongoing royalties on Apple sales through 2035.
Background
Taction Technology, Inc. sued Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 26, 2021. Taction is a San Diego company that once sold the Kannon headphone through a Kickstarter campaign. It alleged that Apple’s Taptic Engine infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, which cover tactile transducers that generate bass-frequency vibrations for perception by touch. The Taptic Engine is the vibration motor in iPhones and Apple Watches that simulates clicks and provides tactile feedback. Taction claimed that Apple had examined and reverse-engineered its Kannon headsets before redesigning its own haptic hardware.
Kenosha Investments LP and Gronostaj Investments LLC, entities tied to litigation funder Burford Capital, financed Taction’s litigation, and funder disclosure became a side dispute in the case. On July 17, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt granted the two funders’ motion to quash Apple’s subpoenas seeking their litigation-funding records. On August 11, 2023, after striking testimony from Taction’s infringement expert as procedurally improper, the court granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement based on its construction of the claims. The court closed the case, and Taction appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 1, 2023.
On August 13, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel led by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore issued a nonprecedential opinion reviving the case. The panel held that the district court had abused its discretion by excluding the expert’s opinion under the local patent rules. It also held that the district court’s claim construction was erroneous, vacated the noninfringement judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, a jury trial began before Judge Todd W. Robinson in San Diego on September 14, 2026. Both sides moved for judgment as a matter of law before the case went to the jury.
On September 25, 2026, after roughly two days of deliberation, the seven-member jury found that Apple’s Taptic Engine infringed both patents. The jury rejected Apple’s invalidity defenses, found that the infringement was not willful, and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750 in damages. Apple, which says it does not use Taction’s technology, has said it will appeal what press reports describe as the largest patent verdict returned in the United States. On October 13, 2026, Apple filed a post-trial motion asking the court to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in its favor or order a new trial. It argued that the infringement findings lack substantial evidentiary support, that the patents are invalid, and that the damages award rests on speculative evidence. On October 19, 2026, Taction asked the court to add supplemental damages for post-verdict sales, prejudgment interest at California’s statutory rate, and ongoing royalties through 2035. On November 3, 2026, Taction opposed Apple’s post-trial motion, arguing that Apple’s request to pay zero damages is unsupported.
Timeline 22 events
-
FilingTaction opposes Apple’s bid to overturn $5.72B verdict
Taction Technology filed a brief opposing Apple’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. It argued that Apple’s request to pay zero damages is unsupported.
-
FilingTaction moves to increase $5.72B verdict against Apple
Taction Technology asked the district court to add supplemental damages for post-verdict iPhone and Apple Watch sales, prejudgment interest at California’s statutory rate, and ongoing royalties through 2035.
Taction Seeks To Boost $5.7B Patent Verdict Against AppleFollowing $5.7B verdict, Taction wants a cut of iPhone and Apple Watch sales through 2035Taction won record-breaking $5.7 billion verdict against Apple, asks for more
-
FilingApple moves to overturn $5.72B verdict in district court
Apple asked Judge Todd W. Robinson to set aside the verdict, arguing that the infringement findings were unsupported, the patents are invalid, and the damages rested on speculative evidence. It sought judgment in its favor or, alternatively, a new trial.
Apple Urges Judge To Toss 'Shocking' $5.7B Patent VerdictApple challenges Taction's $5.7B patent verdict, says damages were based on 'guesswork'Apple asks judge to overturn $5.7B patent verdict in Taction case
-
OtherApple confirms plan to appeal verdict
Apple said in a statement that it “does not use Taction’s technology” and will appeal the jury’s finding and damages award.
Apple faces $5.7 billion patent infringement verdict over iPhone and Apple Watch haptics
-
OtherReports identify Burford-linked funders of Taction’s suit
Bloomberg Law and other outlets reported that Taction’s litigation was financed by Kenosha Investments LP and Gronostaj Investments LLC, entities tied to Burford Capital.
Apple Owes $5.7 Billion for Infringement of Haptics PatentsApple Ordered to Pay Taction a Record $5.7 Billion
-
OtherCourt filings identify Burford Capital-linked funders of Taction’s suit
Court filings identified Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP, tied to litigation funder Burford Capital, as financiers of Taction’s litigation against Apple.
Apple Owes $5.7 Billion for Infringement of Haptics Patents (2)
-
OtherApple says it will appeal verdict
Apple stated it would appeal what press reports called the largest U.S. patent verdict on record, disputing that its Taptic Engine uses Taction’s technology.
Apple faces $5.7 billion patent infringement verdict over iPhone and Apple Watch haptics
-
JudgmentJury finds Apple liable, awards $5.72B
After two days of deliberation, seven jurors found Apple infringed both Taction patents, rejected Apple’s invalidity defenses, and awarded $5,721,961,750 in damages.
Apple Hit With Historic $5.7B Patent VerdictApple Owes $5.7 Billion for Infringement of Haptics Patents
-
JudgmentJury finds Apple’s infringement was not willful
The same verdict that found infringement and set damages also found Apple’s conduct was not willful, which limits Taction’s ability to seek enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Apple Owes $5.7 Billion for Infringement of Haptics Patents (2)
-
OrderBoth sides move for judgment as a matter of law before verdict
Taction and Apple each moved for judgment as a matter of law during trial, before the jury returned its verdict.
-
JudgmentJury finds infringement and awards $5.72B
The jury found for Taction on infringement and validity, found that the infringement was not willful, and awarded $5,721,961,750 in damages. Apple said it strongly disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.), docketUS jury says Apple owes record $5.7 billion in haptic technology patent case
-
HearingJury trial begins in San Diego
Trial opened before Judge Todd W. Robinson and a jury of seven.
Apple faces $5.7 billion patent infringement verdict over iPhone and Apple Watch hapticsTaction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.), docket
-
AppealFederal Circuit revives case, vacates noninfringement ruling
A Federal Circuit panel held the district court abused its discretion by striking Taction’s expert infringement opinions and erred in claim construction, vacating summary judgment for Apple.
-
AppealFederal Circuit panel issues nonprecedential opinion reviving case
The panel of Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Judge Raymond T. Chen, and Judge Mark A. Barnett held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding Taction’s expert testimony. It remanded the case for further proceedings.
-
AppealFederal Circuit finds expert exclusion was an abuse of discretion
A panel led by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore held the district court wrongly struck Taction’s infringement expert based on an arbitrary reading of local patent rules.
-
AppealFederal Circuit vacates the noninfringement ruling
A panel of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Chen, and Judge Barnett held that the district court’s claim construction was erroneous. It vacated the summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2349 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025)
-
AppealTaction appeals to the Federal Circuit
Taction appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (No. 23-2349).
Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2349 (Fed. Cir.), docket
-
JudgmentCourt grants Apple summary judgment of noninfringement and closes case
The court held that Apple did not infringe the asserted claims of either patent, based on its construction of the claims.
Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.), docketTaction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2349 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025)
-
OrderMagistrate judge quashes Apple’s subpoenas to Taction funders
Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt granted a motion by Kenosha Investments LP and Gronostaj Investments LLC to quash Apple’s subpoenas seeking their litigation-funding records.
Order Granting Non-Parties' Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas
-
OrderMagistrate judge quashes subpoenas to Taction’s funders
Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt granted a motion by non-parties Kenosha Investments LP and Gronostaj Investments LLC to quash Apple’s subpoenas seeking information about Taction’s litigation funding.
-
FilingTaction sues Apple over Taptic Engine haptics
Taction filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that the Taptic Engine in iPhones and Apple Watches infringes its tactile transducer patents.
Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.), docket
-
FilingTaction files applications for the two asserted patents
Taction filed the applications that issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, covering tactile transducer technology later at issue in the suit.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the district court rule on Apple’s post-trial motions challenging Taction’s $5.72 billion jury verdict by September 30, 2027?
- Court upholds full $5.72B verdict35%
- Court cuts damages or orders retrial23%
- Still pending on September 30, 202723%
- Apple wins JMOL or new liability trial12%
- Taction and Apple settle7%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 11 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely result is that Judge Robinson leaves the full $5.72 billion verdict intact, at 35%, by September 30, 2027. Trial judges rarely overturn jury findings on infringement and validity, though a damages cut or retrial remains a strong alternative.
How it resolves. Resolves on the district court’s first order deciding Apple’s October 13, 2026, motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, as shown on the S.D. Cal. docket (3:21-cv-00812) or in reliable press reports. “Upholds” means infringement, validity, and the full $5,721,961,750 award stand, even if supplemental damages or interest are added. “Cuts damages or orders retrial” means remittitur, reduced damages, or a damages-only new trial while some liability finding stands. “Apple wins” means judgment for Apple on both patents or a new trial on liability. “Settle” means a public settlement or dismissal by agreement announced before any such ruling. Otherwise the question is still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. District court rulings on post-trial motions after U.S. patent jury verdicts above $500 million: Trial judges deny JMOL on liability in roughly 70% to 80% of patent jury wins, but reduce or retry damages in perhaps 25% to 35% of very large awards.
Trial courts deny JMOL on liability in most patent jury wins, and mega-verdicts such as VLSI v. Intel and Caltech v. Apple largely survived post-trial review before facing the Federal Circuit. Here the jury found infringement of both patents and rejected invalidity, and the Federal Circuit had already revived Taction’s expert testimony and corrected claim construction, which narrows Apple’s liability arguments. Damages are the weaker point because a $5.72 billion award for one component invites a remittitur or damages-only retrial under apportionment law. The no-willfulness finding removes enhancement, so the dispute centers on the base award, ongoing royalties, and interest. Briefing is moving, but combined motions in a case this large can take many months, so a ruling after September 30, 2027, is plausible. Settlement before a ruling is unlikely because Apple has publicly committed to appeal and Taction’s Burford-linked funding lets it wait. No outcome moved five points from the October 20, 2026, forecast because Taction’s November 3 opposition was expected and adds no ruling.
Jury found infringement and validity on both patents · Size of award invites apportionment and remittitur scrutiny · Federal Circuit remand already rejected Apple’s key earlier rulings · Combined post-trial motions may delay a ruling past deadline · Apple’s appeal pledge and Burford funding reduce settlement pressure
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 8, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made