A US federal jury has ordered Apple to pay more than $5.7 billion to Taction Technology after finding that technology used in the iPhone and Apple Watch infringed two of the company’s patents.
The verdict was delivered on September 25 in the US District Court for the Southern District of California. It is being described as the largest patent damages verdict in US history. Apple said it strongly disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal.
The dispute centres on Apple’s Taptic Engine, the component that produces the taps, vibrations and other physical feedback users feel when interacting with an iPhone or Apple Watch.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Jury finds two Taction patents were infringed
The jury found that Apple infringed claims in US Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117.
Those patents relate to tactile transducers that produce low-frequency vibrations which can be perceived through touch. The technology uses combinations of magnets, coils and damped moving components to generate physical feedback.
Taction argued that Apple’s Taptic Engine incorporated technology covered by those patents.
The jury accepted that argument and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750 in damages. It also rejected Apple’s invalidity defences relating to the patent claims decided at trial.
However, the jury found that Apple’s infringement was not willful.
That distinction matters because US patent law can allow courts to increase damages in cases involving particularly deliberate infringement. A finding of non-willfulness makes such enhanced damages less likely.
What Apple’s Taptic Engine does
Haptic technology creates physical feedback through vibrations or movement.
On an iPhone, for example, a user may feel a short tap after pressing an on-screen control. An Apple Watch can similarly use vibrations to provide alerts, navigation directions or other notifications.
Apple calls the hardware responsible for much of this feedback the Taptic Engine.
Taction’s patents describe systems for creating controlled vibrations through electromagnetic components and damping mechanisms.
The legal question was not simply whether both companies used vibration technology.
Patent infringement depends on whether the accused product contains the specific technical elements described in the patent claims.
The jury concluded that Apple’s devices did.
Apple says its technology is fundamentally different
Apple rejected the verdict.
In a statement reported by Bloomberg Law, the company said its Taptic Engine was fundamentally different from Taction’s technology and argued that Taction’s own testing during the trial supported Apple’s position.
Apple said it does not use Taction’s technology and will appeal.
That means the $5.7 billion award is not necessarily the final amount Apple will ultimately have to pay.
The company can ask the trial judge to overturn or reduce parts of the verdict and can also challenge the decision before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles most patent appeals.
Case had already been revived once on appeal
The lawsuit has been running for several years.
Taction sued Apple in 2021, alleging infringement of its haptic-feedback patents in certain iPhone and Apple Watch models.
Apple initially won the case at the summary-judgment stage.
In 2023, the district court found in Apple’s favour and concluded there was no infringement.
Taction appealed.
In August 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated that judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings. The appeals court found problems with the way the lower court had interpreted the patent claims and handled expert evidence.
That ruling reopened the case and ultimately allowed Taction’s claims to reach a jury.
$5.7 billion verdict sets an unusually high benchmark
Patent damages can become enormous when the disputed technology appears in products sold at massive scale.
Apple has sold hundreds of millions of iPhones and Apple Watches over the period relevant to the case.
That means even a relatively small royalty applied across a huge number of devices can produce billions of dollars in claimed damages.
Law360 described the verdict as the largest patent award in US history.
However, jury awards of this size frequently face intensive post-trial review.
Judges can reduce damages, set aside parts of verdicts or order new trials, while appeals courts can reverse findings relating to infringement, patent validity or damages calculations.
The final financial exposure may therefore change substantially before the litigation ends.
Litigation funding adds another dimension
The case also involves third-party litigation financing.
Court discovery revealed that Taction received financial support from Gronostaj Investments and Kenosha Investments. Bloomberg Law reported that Kenosha has previously been identified in separate litigation as an indirect subsidiary of litigation finance firm Burford Capital.
Litigation funding allows outside investors to finance legal cases in return for a potential share of recoveries.
The practice has become increasingly important in high-cost patent disputes, where smaller companies may otherwise struggle to finance years of litigation against much larger defendants.
Apple had sought greater disclosure about Taction’s funding arrangements during the case.
Appeal could determine whether record verdict survives
The next stage will focus heavily on post-trial motions and Apple’s appeal.
Apple can challenge whether the patent claims were properly interpreted, whether the evidence supported infringement and whether the $5.72 billion damages calculation was legally justified.
Taction, meanwhile, now has a jury verdict finding its patents valid against Apple’s presented defences and infringed by the accused technology.
The case is Taction Technology Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00812, in the US District Court for the Southern District of California.
What this means for you: The $5.7 billion figure is a jury verdict, not necessarily Apple’s final bill. Apple has already said it will appeal, and the award could be reduced, overturned or upheld as the case moves through post-trial and appellate proceedings.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
