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 infringement, rejected Apple’s invalidity defenses, and awarded $5.72B in damages, which press reports call the largest U.S. patent verdict on record. The jury found the infringement was not willful, and Apple says it will appeal.
Latest development Sep 25, 2026
On September 25, 2026, the jury found for Taction on infringement and validity and awarded $5.72B in damages. It found that Apple’s infringement was not willful, which limits Taction’s ability to seek enhanced damages. Both sides had moved for judgment as a matter of law before the case went to the jury, and Apple says it will appeal.
Why it matters
The verdict, which press reports describe as the largest in a U.S. patent case, concerns a component in every current iPhone and Apple Watch. Post-trial motions and any appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will decide whether damages of that size survive.
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. In August 2023, the court granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement, based on its construction of the claims, and closed the case. It had struck testimony from Taction’s infringement expert as procedurally improper. Taction appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
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 based on an overly rigid reading of local patent rules. It also held that the district court’s claim construction was erroneous. It 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, rejected Apple’s invalidity defenses, and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750 in damages. It found that the infringement was not willful. 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. The post-trial motions and any appeal to the Federal Circuit will determine whether the damages award stands.
Timeline 19 events
-
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 reveal Burford-linked funding 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
-
JudgmentCase closes after summary judgment of noninfringement for Apple
The court granted Apple summary judgment that the asserted claims of both patents were not infringed, based on its construction of the claims, and closed the case.
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 post-trial motions challenging Taction’s $5.72 billion jury verdict against Apple by September 30, 2027?
- Court upholds full $5.72B verdict34%
- Still pending on September 30, 202725%
- Court cuts damages or orders retrial22%
- Apple wins JMOL or new liability trial12%
- Taction and Apple settle7%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 12 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome, at 34%, is that the district court leaves the $5.72 billion verdict intact by September 30, 2027. Trial judges usually defer to jury findings on infringement and validity. The unprecedented size of the award still carries real risk of a damages cut or retrial.
How it resolves. Resolves on the district court’s rulings on renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, or remittitur in No. 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.). “Verdict upheld” means the court denies Apple’s motions and enters or keeps judgment on liability with damages of at least $5.72 billion, before interest or costs. “Damages cut” means liability stands but the court reduces the award, orders remittitur, or orders a new damages trial. “Apple wins” means the court grants judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement or invalidity, or a new trial on liability, for both patents. “Settlement” means a publicly reported settlement or dismissal by agreement before the rulings. “Still pending” means no ruling on the post-trial motions has issued by September 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Post-trial motions after U.S. patent jury verdicts above $1 billion: District courts sustain most patent jury liability findings. For billion-dollar awards, roughly one-quarter to one-third are reduced or set aside at the post-trial stage, with more cut on appeal.
District courts deny most renewed JMOL motions in patent cases, so a full liability reversal is unlikely. Jury damages awards above $1 billion face closer scrutiny, and a meaningful share are reduced or sent to retrial post-trial. Awards in VLSI v. Intel and Caltech v. Apple survived post-trial motions before being vacated on appeal. At $5.72 billion, reportedly the largest U.S. patent verdict, the risk of remittitur or a new damages trial is elevated. The claim construction dispute already went to the Federal Circuit once. That gives Apple structured grounds to press on the new constructions, though a trial court rarely overturns liability on its own. The non-willfulness finding removes enhanced damages and narrows the motions. Timing is a real constraint. Judgment entry, briefing, and a ruling on post-trial motions in a case this large can exceed a year, so still pending is a leading alternative. Settlement before the rulings is possible given Burford-linked funding, but Apple has usually litigated large patent verdicts through appeal.
Record-setting award size invites remittitur or new damages trial · Courts rarely overturn jury liability findings on renewed JMOL · Post-trial briefing in large cases can run past a year · Non-willfulness finding removes enhanced damages from the motions · Apple’s practice of appealing rather than settling large verdicts
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 26, 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