San Diego jury awards Taction $5.7 billion against Apple over haptic patents

A federal jury in San Diego found on Friday, September 25, 2026, that Apple infringed two haptics patents owned by Taction Technology Inc. and that Apple owes Taction more than $5.7 billion. The case is Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00812, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Reuters described the award as the country’s largest patent verdict to date. The jury found that the infringement was not willful. Apple said it will appeal.

The verdict

According to AppleInsider’s account of the verdict form, the jury found that Apple infringed two claims of one patent and one claim of the other, that Taction had not proved willful infringement, and that Apple had not proved any of the three claims invalid. The form’s damages answer, as AppleInsider reported it, is $5,721,961,750. Bloomberg Law and Reuters reported the award as more than $5.7 billion. Bloomberg Law reported that jurors deliberated over parts of two days.

The two patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117. Bloomberg Law reported that both describe “tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations” that can be felt. The accused feature is Apple’s Taptic Engine, the component that produces the tapping vibrations in iPhones and Apple Watches. Reuters reported that Taction, which is based in San Diego, uses its technology in headphones and gaming headsets.

How the case got here

Taction sued Apple in April 2021. In 2023 the district court granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement on claims 1 to 20 of the ’885 patent and claims 1 to 17 of the ’117 patent. Two rulings led there. The court construed the claim term “highly damped output” to require a flat output over the device’s operating frequency range, achieved through mechanical damping, with a Q-factor below 1.5. It also struck the infringement opinions of Taction’s expert, Dr. Oliver, as a new theory not disclosed in Taction’s infringement contentions under the court’s Patent Local Rule 3.1(c).

On August 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated that judgment in a nonprecedential opinion by Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judges Chen and Barnett (No. 23-2349). The panel held that striking the expert’s opinions was an abuse of discretion, because the district court had read into Rule 3.1(c) a requirement that contentions explain “how” each claim element is met, which the rule’s text does not contain. It also rejected the mechanical-damping and Q-factor limitations, construing the term to mean that “the output is substantially uniform or flat over the normal operating frequency range of the device.” The panel remanded for further proceedings and awarded costs to Taction. Judge Todd W. Robinson signed the district court’s August 11, 2026 order resolving the parties’ pretrial motions.

What the parties said

In a statement, Apple thanked the jury but said it strongly disagreed with “today’s verdict and the damages awarded, which are entirely unsupported by the facts.” It said its “Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology, which Taction’s own testing of Apple’s products confirmed during trial,” and added: “Apple does not use Taction’s technology, and we will appeal.” Reuters reported that Apple denied the allegations and argued the patents were invalid.

For Taction, the statement “We’re happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights” was attributed by Bloomberg Law to Tigran Guledjian of Quinn Emanuel and by Reuters to Taction attorney Lance Yang. Bloomberg Law also quoted Guledjian: “Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming.”

Litigation funding

Bloomberg Law reported that discovery in the case revealed that Taction received financing for the litigation from Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP, and that Kenosha was identified in separate litigation as an indirect subsidiary of Burford Capital Ltd. It reported that Kenosha and Gronostaj are represented by Singer Cashman LLP. Apple is represented by Fish & Richardson; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Walker Stevens Cannom LLP; and Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP.

What comes next

A jury verdict is not yet a judgment. The court must enter judgment, and under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59 a party may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for a new trial no later than 28 days after judgment is entered. Appeals in patent infringement cases go to the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Under 35 U.S.C. § 284 a court may increase damages up to three times the amount found; the jury here found the infringement was not willful.

What is not yet known

None of the sources reviewed reported that judgment had been entered, whether Taction will seek prejudgment interest, which three claims the jury found infringed, or how the damages figure was calculated. The desk did not review the verdict form itself; the exact figure and the claim-by-claim findings above are AppleInsider’s reading of it. The trial’s start date was not stated in the reports reviewed.

Sources

The Federal Circuit’s opinion of August 13, 2025; the district court docket, No. 3:21-cv-00812, and the court’s August 11, 2026 order; reporting by Bloomberg Law, Reuters and AppleInsider. Statements by Apple and Taction’s counsel are given as those outlets reported them.