Taction v. Apple: How a Case Apple Won in 2023 Became a $5.7 Billion Patent Verdict

On September 25, 2026, a federal jury in San Diego ordered Apple to pay Taction Technology $5,721,961,750 for infringing two haptics patents. The accused technology is the Taptic Engine, the small component that makes an iPhone tap under your thumb and an Apple Watch buzz on your wrist. News reports have called it the largest patent verdict in U.S. history. It is more than double the $2.18 billion VLSI verdict against Intel in 2021.

Less attention has gone to the fact that Apple won this case three years ago. In 2023, the district judge granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement. Taction appealed, and in August 2025 the Federal Circuit vacated that ruling and sent the case back for trial.

The path from a defense win to a ten-figure loss holds lessons for companies that sell products and for companies that own patents. One of those lessons applies directly to patent cases filed here in Chicago.

## What the jury decided in Taction v. Apple

The case is *Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.*, No. 3:21-cv-00812 (S.D. Cal.), before U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson. Taction is a San Diego haptics company whose technology is used in headphones and gaming headsets. It asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117. Both patents cover tactile transducers that produce bass-frequency vibrations felt through the skin. In the representative claim, a ferrofluid damps the motion of a moving mass to reduce resonance in the 40 to 200 Hz range.

After a trial that began September 14, the jury found that the Taptic Engine in Apple's iPhones and Apple Watches infringed claims of both patents. The jury rejected Apple's invalidity defense. It also found that the infringement was not willful, which removes the main basis for enhancing damages up to three times under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

The verdict form reports a single total. Public reporting has not disclosed the royalty rate, the royalty base, or the unit counts behind it, and those inputs are likely to be the focus of Apple's challenge. Apple says its Taptic Engine works differently from Taction's technology and has said it will appeal. Until the court enters judgment and the appeal is resolved, the $5.7 billion figure is not final.

## The case Apple had already won

Taction sued in 2021. In 2023, Judge Robinson granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement on two independent grounds.

First, the court struck the opinions of Taction's infringement expert, Dr. James Oliver. Dr. Oliver concluded that the Taptic Engine's closed-loop software controller, combined with its ferrofluid, produced the "highly damped output" the claims require. The court treated that as a new theory that Taction had not disclosed in its infringement contentions. Southern District of California Patent Local Rule 3.1(c) requires a chart identifying *where* each claim element is found in the accused product. The court read the rule to also require an explanation of *how*. Without its expert, Taction had no infringement case.

Second, the court narrowed the claims. It construed "highly damped output" to require mechanical damping and a Q-factor below 1.5. Apple's products have a Q-factor above 1.5, so under that construction they could not infringe.

On August 13, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment in a nonprecedential opinion by Chief Judge Moore (No. 2023-2349). The panel held that reading an unwritten "how" requirement into Rule 3.1(c) was an abuse of discretion. The Northern District of California's rule says "where and how," but the Southern District's rule says only "where," and nothing put Taction on notice of the difference. The panel also held that striking all of Dr. Oliver's opinions on that limitation, based on three paragraphs of claim-construction argument, was an abuse of discretion.

The claim-construction ruling was mixed. The court agreed that the claims are limited to transducers with highly damped output, based on a statement the patentee made while prosecuting the parent application. But it held that the district court erred by importing a mechanical-damping requirement from the examples in the specification, and by finding that the specification disavowed higher Q-factors when it never clearly did so.

The case returned to San Diego for trial, which ended in the September 25 verdict.

## Lesson one: a summary judgment win can be reversed years later

For a defendant, summary judgment can feel like the end of the case, but it is final only after the appeal. The two grounds Apple won on are among the easiest to challenge. The Federal Circuit reviews claim construction de novo, without deference to the trial court. An expert exclusion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but an exclusion based on a requirement that does not appear in the rule is hard to defend under any standard.

Exposure also continues while an appeal is pending. In a reasonable-royalty case, every accused unit sold in the meantime is added to the royalty base if the patent owner ultimately prevails. The Taptic Engine has been in the Apple Watch since the first model and in iPhones since the iPhone 6s in 2015. When the accused feature is in every product you sell, potential damages grow every quarter the case is on appeal.

It also matters who is on the other side. Court filings identified outside funders of Taction's litigation, including an entity identified in separate litigation as an indirect subsidiary of litigation-finance firm Burford Capital. A funded plaintiff can absorb a loss in the trial court and a two-year appeal. The period right after a defense win, when the plaintiff has the least leverage, is often a good time to explore settlement.

## Lesson two: statements to the examiner can bind a whole patent family

The claim-construction ruling shows how choices made during prosecution can affect litigation years later, for better and for worse.

A single statement narrowed the entire patent family. While prosecuting the parent application, the patentee told the examiner that its invention, unlike the prior art, was directed to transducers with highly damped output. The Federal Circuit treated that statement as a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. The disclaimer applied to the '885 and '117 patents even though their claims were not identical to the parent claim, because the subject matter was the same. Describing what "the invention" is, as a whole, is a common way to create a disclaimer, and the disclaimer can carry over to related patents.

A related patent kept the claims from being narrowed further. U.S. Patent No. 9,430,921, in the same family, contains the same critical statements about prior art with high Q-factors, but several of its claims expressly require a Q-factor below 1.5. Reading that limitation into every patent in the family would have made those express limitations superfluous, and the Federal Circuit cited that as a reason not to do it. A family with deliberately varied claim scope helped the patent owner in court.

At Wood Phillips, we manage patent portfolios as business assets, and this case shows why. Arguments made to an examiner can define claim scope a decade later. A continuation with narrow claims can help protect the breadth of the other patents in the family. Both depend on decisions made during prosecution.

## Why this matters for patent cases in Chicago

The same issue can arise in Chicago. The Northern District of Illinois, Chicago's federal court, uses nearly identical language in its own rules. Local Patent Rule 2.2(c) requires infringement contentions to include "a chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality." Like the Southern District of California's rule, it refers to *where* each element is found and does not mention *how*.

Patent appeals from the Northern District of Illinois go to the Federal Circuit, the same court that decided Taction's appeal. The 2025 opinion is nonprecedential and does not bind future panels, but its reasoning is persuasive. A requirement that is not in the text of a rule, and that the parties were never told about, is a weak basis for striking an expert. The panel noted that a court may impose such a requirement if the parties have notice and an opportunity to comply. Parties litigating patent cases in Chicago should raise the question early and get the court's expectations in writing.

## What this verdict does not decide

This verdict does not establish a final damages number or a new rule of law.

The verdict is not yet a judgment. Apple can ask Judge Robinson for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or a reduced award, and can then appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court that revived the case. Very large patent verdicts often do not survive in full. In December 2023, the Federal Circuit vacated the $2.18 billion VLSI verdict against Intel, reversing the infringement finding on one patent and ordering a new damages trial on the other.

Damages are likely to be the main focus of any challenge. In May 2025, the en banc Federal Circuit in *EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC* ordered a new damages trial because the district court had admitted a damages expert's per-unit royalty opinion that was not based on sufficient facts or data. That decision reinforced the trial judge's duty to screen expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and the inputs behind the $5.7 billion figure will be reviewed under that standard.

## What Chicago product companies and patent owners should do now

**If you make or sell products:**

1. **Keep the file open after a win.** A trial-court victory lowers the risk but does not eliminate it. Keep reserves, risk assessments, and settlement authority in place until the appeal is decided, and consider whether the period after a win is a good time to resolve the case on favorable terms.

2. **Map your high-volume components.** Exposure grows with the number of units sold. Haptics, sensors, power management, and other components that ship in every unit belong at the top of any freedom-to-operate review, whether you designed them or bought them.

3. **Read the file history of the entire patent family.** The disclaimer that narrowed Taction's claims came from the parent application, not from the patents in suit. The claims that limited how far the narrowing could go came from another patent in the family. Your noninfringement positions should account for both.

4. **Get contention requirements in writing.** Chicago's federal court, like the court in San Diego, asks only where each claim element is found. If you need a plaintiff to explain how, ask the court to order it at the start of the case. A requirement that was never written down may not hold up on appeal, and neither will a win that depends on it.

**If you own patents:**

1. **Choose your words to the examiner carefully.** Statements about what "the invention" is will be read against every patent in the family. When you can, distinguish prior art based on the claim language instead of describing the invention as a whole.

2. **Build patent families with varied claim scope.** Narrow, specific limitations in one patent can help preserve the breadth of others. Plan for this starting with the first continuation.

3. **Explain both where and how in your contentions.** Even where the local rules ask only "where," as they do in the Northern District of Illinois, contentions that explain how the accused product works are much harder to strike.

4. **Don't treat a summary judgment loss as the end.** Taction's case appeared to be over in 2023. Review the appellate record, especially expert exclusions and claim constructions, before deciding to walk away.

## Frequently asked questions

**How much did the jury award Taction?** $5,721,961,750, in a verdict returned September 25, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

**Which patents were at issue?** U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, covering damped tactile transducers that produce bass-frequency vibrations felt through touch.

**What Apple technology was accused?** The Taptic Engine in certain iPhone and Apple Watch models.

**Was the infringement willful?** No. That finding removes the main basis for enhancing damages up to three times.

**Does Apple have to pay now?** Not yet. The verdict is subject to post-trial motions before Judge Robinson and an appeal to the Federal Circuit, which Apple has said it will pursue.

**Why did the Federal Circuit revive the case?** In August 2025 it held the trial court abused its discretion by striking Taction's expert under an unwritten local-rule requirement, and erred in narrowing the claims to mechanical damping and a Q-factor below 1.5.

**Do Chicago's federal patent rules require infringement contentions to explain "how"?** Not in so many words. Northern District of Illinois Local Patent Rule 2.2(c) requires a chart showing where each claim element is found in each accused product. A judge can require more, but under the Federal Circuit's reasoning in *Taction*, the parties should be told in advance.

**When should a company bring in patent litigation counsel?** Earlier than most companies do. Good times include before a high-volume product ships, when a demand letter or complaint arrives, and after any trial-court ruling, whether you won or lost, so you can reassess exposure before the appeal is decided.

## Looking ahead

Post-trial motions and an appeal will determine whether the $5.7 billion award stands, and that process will take time. The legal principles that drove the case are familiar ones: courts read local rules as written, claims are not limited to the examples in the specification, and statements made to an examiner can bind an entire patent family. Companies on both sides of patent disputes should plan with those principles in mind, whatever happens to this verdict.

*Related reading: [Peloton's $20.5 Million NEC Patent Verdict: The Freedom-to-Operate Lesson Hiding in a Video Player](https://www.woodphillips.com/post/peloton-s-20-5-million-nec-patent-verdict-the-freedom-to-operate-lesson-hiding-in-a-video-player) and [Low-Power Precision: Why the Federal Circuit Saved Google's Hotword Patents](https://www.woodphillips.com/post/low-power-precision-why-the-federal-circuit-saved-google-s-hotword-patents).*