Apple has asked a US federal judge to overturn a $5.7 billion patent infringement verdict awarded to Taction Technology, arguing that the jury’s damages calculation lacked sufficient evidentiary support and that its products do not infringe the disputed patents.
Apple has filed a post-trial challenge in the US District Court for the Southern District of California after a jury found that the company infringed patents covering haptic feedback technology used in iPhones and Apple Watches.
The $5.7 billion verdict ranks among the largest patent damages awards returned by a US jury. However, the award remains subject to post-trial proceedings and has not been confirmed as a final enforceable judgment.
The dispute centres on Apple’s Taptic Engine, which generates vibrations and tactile feedback when users interact with its devices.
Taction Technology, a California company specialising in haptic technology, filed its lawsuit in 2021, alleging that Apple’s products incorporated inventions protected by its patents without authorisation.
The patents concern tactile transducers designed to produce vibrations that can be perceived through touch.
Following the trial, jurors concluded that Apple had infringed the patents but did not find that the infringement was wilful.
Apple is now challenging both the infringement findings and the financial award.
In its post-trial arguments, the company contends that Taction failed to establish a reliable basis for calculating damages and that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to support a reasonable royalty of $5.7 billion.
Apple also argues that Taction lacked admissible expert testimony capable of supporting the scale of the royalty award ultimately returned by the jury.
The company is asking the court to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in its favour or, alternatively, order a new trial.
Apple has also challenged the technical evidence used to establish infringement, arguing that Taction’s evidence did not adequately demonstrate that the Taptic Engine satisfied the requirements of the patents.
Taction has defended the jury’s findings. Following the verdict, its legal representatives welcomed the decision as recognition of the company’s patent rights after years of litigation.
The dispute has already passed through earlier district court and Federal Circuit proceedings before returning for trial.
The latest challenge will require the district court to consider whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support both the jury’s infringement findings and its damages calculation.
In US patent litigation, a reasonable royalty must be supported by evidence connecting the claimed compensation to the economic value of the patented technology.
Courts must also consider whether damages calculations improperly incorporate the value of product features unrelated to the patents at issue.
Those principles can become particularly significant when patented technology represents only one component of a complex consumer product such as an iPhone or Apple Watch.
The size of the verdict therefore places considerable attention on the evidence used to establish the value attributable specifically to Taction’s technology.
Although the jury awarded $5.7 billion, Apple still has several avenues through which to challenge the outcome.
The district court could uphold the verdict, alter the award where legally permitted, enter judgment contrary to the jury’s findings or order a new trial.
Further appellate proceedings could follow once the district court has resolved Apple’s post-trial motions and entered an appealable judgment.
The case remains a significant test of the evidentiary requirements governing patent damages, particularly where a disputed invention forms part of a sophisticated product containing numerous technologies.
Its eventual outcome could influence how courts approach royalty calculations and infringement evidence in future patent disputes involving high-value consumer electronics.