A $5.7 billion patent verdict against Apple came from a jury given no damages expert testimony.

On September 25, 2026, a federal jury in San Diego found that iPhones and Apple Watches infringe two Taction Technology patents on damped vibration motors and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750. Reuters called the award a record. The jury found the infringement was not willful, removing the usual basis for enhanced damages under the Patent Act.

The Procedural History and Infringement Theories

The trial followed an appeal. Judge Todd W. Robinson granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement in 2023. In 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the 2023 judgment in a nonprecedential decision, holding that the patents' “highly damped output” requirement can be met by non-mechanical damping. Taction's infringement theory paired the ferrofluid in Apple's Taptic Engine with the software-driven controller adjusting the engine's input.

Exclusion of the Damages Expert

Before trial, the court excluded the reasonable-royalty opinions of Taction's damages expert on the ground that the opinions relied on excluded apportionment analysis, the step separating the value of the patented features from the rest of a product. Taction argued that the Patent Act guarantees at least a reasonable royalty once infringement is found, with or without an expert, citing Dow Chemical v. Mee Industries (2003). Apple's October 13 post-trial motion asks the court to award no damages, citing Rex Medical v. Intuitive Surgical (2025), where the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of no damages after the patentee's expert was excluded for failing to apportion a comparable license.

Takeaways for Patent Owners and Product Companies

  • Infringement and damages are separate burdens of proof. A liability verdict does not by itself sustain a damages award. Apple contends the record contains no evidence tying a dollar figure to the patented features.
  • Claims defined by a device's output can cover products where software control implements physical outputs. The Federal Circuit refused to confine “highly damped output” to the mechanical damping the specification describes.
  • Local patent rules set what infringement contentions must disclose. The Federal Circuit held that striking Taction's technical expert under an unwritten local-rule requirement to explain how each claimed feature is met was an abuse of discretion.

Next Steps in Post-Trial Motions

As of October 16, 2026, the court has not entered final judgment, and Apple's motion to set aside the verdict or order a new trial is pending. Apple maintains the Taptic Engine is “fundamentally different” from Taction's technology and has announced an appeal. The ruling on Apple's motion may define the limits of jury discretion over a reasonable royalty once the damages expert's opinions are excluded.

Sources

  1. 1. 𝘛𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘤., No. 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.), Jury Verdict (Sept. 25, 2026), Dkt. 707; Order, Dkt. 718; Apple Renewed JMOL and New Trial Motion (Oct. 13, 2026), Dkt. 723: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59854908/taction-technology-inc-v-apple-inc/
  2. 2. 𝘛𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘤., No. 2023-2349 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) (nonprecedential): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2349.OPINION.8-13-2025_2558003.pdf
  3. 3. 𝘙𝘦𝘹 𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘓.𝘗. 𝘷. 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘐𝘯𝘤., No. 2024-1072 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2025): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10687680/rex-medical-lp-v-intuitive-surgical-inc/
  4. 4. 𝘋𝘰𝘸 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰. 𝘷. 𝘔𝘦𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘐𝘯𝘤., 341 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
  5. 5. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117
  6. 6. Reuters, US jury says Apple owes record $5.7 billion in haptic technology patent case (Sept. 26, 2026): https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-jury-says-apple-owes-record-57-billion-haptic-technology-patent-case-2026-09-26/