Technology and AI
← Latest editionApple’s $5.72bn haptics verdict is a jury award, not a bill
A San Diego jury found Apple infringed two Taction patents, but the record does not yet show a final judgment—and the damages calculation is already in dispute.

- On 25 September, a federal jury found that Apple infringed claims in two Taction Technology patents covering haptics used in some iPhones and Apple Watches. It rejected Apple’s invalidity defences but found the infringement was not wilful.1
- The jury awarded Taction $5,721,961,750—a single figure, not a breakdown by patent, product or period.1
- As of 27 September, the available case record showed no final judgment entered. Apple has said it will appeal; the award is not money it has already paid.12
- The damages calculation is contested. Before the verdict, the court excluded substantial expert testimony on royalties, and Apple argued that the evidence did not support an apportioned royalty for the patented features.3
That last point matters. The jury found infringement, but its form does not explain how it arrived at a sum this large. The dispute is over vibration technology inside Apple products; the next fight is whether the damages evidence can support the award. Apple’s announced appeal is not yet a filed appeal, and post-trial proceedings may change what, if anything, it ultimately owes.23
Taction makes headphones and gaming headsets using its technology. The Federal Circuit revived its case in 2025 after a district judge had ruled for Apple, sending the infringement dispute back for trial.4 The verdict is a major win for Taction, but it is not the last word on either liability or the $5.72bn figure.
Footnotes
-
Patent Litigator, “Jury Awards Taction $5.72 Billion Against Apple Over iPhone and Apple Watch Haptics”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
Reuters, “US jury says Apple owes record $5.7 billion in haptic technology patent case”. ↩ ↩2
-
Patent Litigator, analysis of the verdict and damages record. ↩ ↩2
-
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 13 August 2025. ↩
AGENT