Apple Challenges Record $5.7B Patent Verdict Over Taptic Engine Infringement
Apple files a motion to overturn historic damages awarded to Taction Technology.
1Record Verdict Under Legal Challenge
Apple filed a motion asking a federal judge to overturn a recent 5.7 billion dollar jury verdict awarded to Taction Technology. The lawsuit claims Apple infringed two patents related to haptic feedback technology in iPhones and Apple Watches. Apple argues that the historic award is entirely unsupported by actual evidence.
2Historic Scale of Financial Damages
The jury award represents the largest patent verdict in history, surpassing the previous record by more than 3 billion dollars. Apple contends that Taction failed to present sufficient evidence to justify any monetary damages. Consequently, the company argues that the jury was forced to engage in impermissible and massive financial speculation.
3Exclusion of Damages Expert Testimony
Before the trial began, the court excluded the damages analysis presented by Taction's financial expert. Flaws in calculating royalties from a previous licensing agreement prompted the court to bar the expert from testifying. Apple asserts that this exclusion left the jury without any formal basis to establish the patented technology's value.
4Jury Asked for Arbitrary Royalties
During trial, Taction told jurors it sought a reasonable royalty for its contribution without presenting valuation evidence. Instead, the company asked jurors to award whatever figure they considered appropriate. Apple argues this strategy failed the legal burden of linking a specific dollar amount directly to the alleged infringing commercial acts.
5Judicial Doubt on Final Amount
Before the verdict was formally announced, the presiding judge expressed uncertainty to attorneys regarding the final figure. The judge noted doubt over whether the 5.7 billion dollar number written on the verdict form accurately reflected the jury's intent. This observation raised significant questions about the mathematical basis of the award.
6Allegations of Rigged Technical Testing
Apple directly accused Taction's technical expert, Dr. Oliver, of relying on a rigged testing methodology to show infringement. Taction's patents require consistent vibrations across different frequencies with highly damped transducer output. Apple maintains that its Taptic Engine operates differently, producing peaked vibration responses rather than the claimed flat frequency output.
7Contradictory Claims Threaten Patent Validity
Apple claims Dr. Oliver evaluated software control systems rather than assessing underlying hardware compliance with patent requirements. The company argues that if Taction's broad interpretation is accepted, the patent claims become legally invalid. The testing method used to establish infringement contradicts the patent descriptions, creating fatal ambiguity regarding scope.
8Requested Relief and Court Options
Apple asks the court to overturn the verdict, eliminate damages entirely, and rule that no valid patents were infringed. Alternatively, Apple requests a completely new trial covering infringement, validity, and damages. Because final judgment has not been formally entered, the federal judge must now decide between these legal paths.