Apple in late September was told it must pay $5.7 billion in damages to Taction Technology after a federal jury found that it had infringed two of the company’s haptics patents in its Apple Watch and iPhone.
Taction sued Apple in 2021, arguing that Apple’s Taptic Engine in the company’s Apple Watches and iPhones uses its inventions without proper license or authority. While Apple had been able to get the case dismissed in 2023, the Federal Circuit later revived it.
The jury trial began September 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and seven jurors deliberated for two days before delivering the verdict on Friday, in favor of Taction.
While cases like these are commonly brought against companies like Apple by “patent trolls,” that is not the case in, well, this case. Patent trolls are companies that buy up cheap patents in bulk and then search through them for any concepts that may exist in well-known technology produced by large companies. The patent troll then file lawsuits in hopes of forcing a large settlement from the companies.
However, in this case, Taction Technology actually develops technology used in premium headphones such as the Corsair HS60 Haptic stereo gaming headset. The headphones use tehnology that Taction calls the “Taction Transporter” to deliver “bass that you can feel.”
While developing “Taction Transporter,”the company filed two patents, U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, both of which describe “systems and methods for generating damped electromagnetically actuated planar motion for audio-frequency vibrations.”
Now, even as Apple is workingon challenging the jury’s verdict in this case, Taction is looking to slip a bit more money from Apple’s deep pockets. It is asking the court to make Apple pay additional damages to cover iPhone and Apple Watch sales Apple made in 2026, while also looking to score hundreds of millions more in prejudgment interest.
Reuters says Taction has asked a federal judge for hundreds of millions more from Apple, as the awarded damages cover only the period from 2021 to March 2026 and that the damages should also include the previous six months.
Taction also wants prejudgment interest to be paid at California’s 7% statutory rate. That means the interest on $5.7 billion would add hundreds of millions of dollars to Apple final tab.
Taction says its argument for interest is simple, as “the size of the jury’s award is no reason to withhold interest.”
It should be no surpirse that Apple plans to appeal, and it has already filed a challenge to the jury’s verdict, saying jurors made their decision without sufficient materials to allow them to accurately determine the damages payment.
Apple also contends that the logic of the case and the alleged infringement are contradictory, and is looking to have the whole thing thrown out of court with a summary judgment.
It should be noted that Apple actually began developing its Taptic Engine long before Taction Technology was even founded. The company was established in 2017 by Dr. Silmon James Biggs, who has several scholarly articles to his name, and who developed the technology in question.
Jurors deliberated for two days before finding that while Apple hadn’t willfully infringed Taction’s patents, it perhaps had instead inadvertently developed technologies that were similar enough to the plaintiff’s to be considered an infringement. In cases such as that, whichever group makes it to the patent office first gets the spoils.
Taction had claimed that Apple willfully infringed on its patents by reverse-engineering the technology used in two of its now-defunct Kannon headsets. The plaintiff attemoted to prove thier claim by submitting both ordering and shipping receipts as evidence.
If Apple is forced to pay the $5.7 billion verdict it will be the largest its ever been ordered to pay. Even the 2019 Qualcomm settlement only came out to $4.5 billion. However, Apple could avoud paying that full amount, as even if the Cupertino company doesn’t get the reward overturned, the amounts could be reduced, or the two combatants could reach a cheaper settlement out-of-court.