A federal jury in San Diego ordered Apple to pay more than $5.7 billion in damages Friday after finding the tech giant infringed two Taction Technology patents covering haptic feedback and tactile transducer technology used in iPhones and Apple Watches.
The Trial and Verdict in San Diego
The courtroom showdown in California came to a head on Friday at 1:15 p.m. PT. A seven-juror panel delivered its decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California after deliberating for two days following a trial that began on September 14. While the jury ruled firmly for Taction Technology Inc., the panel stopped short of declaring the infringement willful.
The massive financial penalty centers on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117. Both patents describe tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations, allowing users to physically feel a device responding to their touch.
Inside the Dispute Over the Taptic Engine
At the heart of the litigation is Apple’s proprietary Taptic Engine, the hardware embedded in Apple Watches and iPhones to simulate physical clicks and provide tactile feedback. Taction initially filed its lawsuit in 2021, accusing Apple of capitalizing on Taction’s innovation and success by shipping devices that incorporated its vibration technology without proper authorization or a license.
Apple pushed back against the claims throughout the proceedings, maintaining that its hardware operates entirely independently of Taction’s intellectual property. In an official statement provided after the verdict, the company announced its immediate intention to challenge the outcome.
“While we thank the jury for their consideration, we strongly disagree with today’s verdict and the damages awarded, which are entirely unsupported by the facts. Apple’s Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology, which Taction’s own testing of Apple’s products confirmed during trial. Apple does not use Taction’s technology, and we will appeal.”Apple
Beyond the technical arguments, court disclosures revealed that Taction received financing for the case from Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP, which was identified in separate litigation as an indirect subsidiary of Burford Capital Ltd. Apple’s legal team mounted an aggressive defense that included efforts to shine a light on Taction’s connections to Burford.
Apple is represented by Fish & Richardson; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Walker Stevens Cannom LLP; and Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP. Kenosha and Gronostaj are represented by Singer Cashman LLP.
A Long Road Through the Federal Courts
The path to Friday’s verdict was anything but straightforward. Apple previously secured a complete dismissal of the case in 2023 when a federal judge ruled in the tech giant’s favor. However, the legal environment shifted when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resurrected the lawsuit last year.
The appeals court determined that the initial dismissal turned on an unwritten requirement that improperly prevented Taction from using certain pieces of expert testimony. That reversal cleared the path for the September trial.
For Taction’s legal representation, the verdict brought a sense of vindication after more than half a decade of courtroom combat. We’re happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights,
said Taction’s lawyer, Tigran Guledjian of Quinn Emanuel. Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming.
Taction attorney Lance Yang added that the company was pleased with the jury’s decision, which confirmed its patent rights.
Financial Stakes and Next Steps
The sheer size of the damages award establishes a major financial and legal overhang for Apple as it prepares its appeals, highlighting the commercial significance of haptics technology in mobile and wearable devices. Haptics technology remains an essential component of modern mobile and wearable design, underpinning how users interact with consumer hardware every day.
As Apple moves forward with its promised appeal, the case returns to the appellate courts to test whether the multibillion-dollar penalty can survive scrutiny.