Skip to content
Today
Sections

Invest Widely confirmed5 publishers 2 min read Published Updated

Apple's record $5.7 billion Taptic Engine verdict returns to the judge who dismissed the case in 2023

San Diego jurors ordered Apple to pay Taction Technology $5.7 billion over the Taptic Engine, the largest U.S. patent verdict on record. Apple has promised to appeal a sum more than twice the roughly $2.5 billion that courts threw out across four earlier verdicts against it.

The Investor · Invest desk

Send a correction

What happened

  • A federal jury in San Diego ordered Apple to pay Taction Technology $5.7 billion for infringing two haptics patents through the Taptic Engine in iPhones and Apple Watches.
  • The two patents, Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, cover systems that produce vibrations in the 40 to 200 Hz range that a user can feel.
  • Seven jurors deliberated for two days after a trial that began Sept. 14 and returned their verdict at 1:15 p.m. Pacific on Friday.
  • The jury found the infringement was not willful, so Taction cannot use the federal rule that lets judges triple a patent award.

Why it matters

  • What it costs cost The no-willfulness finding costs Taction a shot at an enhanced award of up to $17.1 billion, so every ruling left in the case can only hold or reduce the $5.7 billion.
  • Who's exposed exposure Apple is carrying two unresolved device-patent verdicts worth about $6.3 billion together, the Taction award and the $634 million Masimo award it is appealing.
  • What doesn't add up contradiction Cryptopolitan's case that Apple may never pay rests on past reversals, yet the only appellate ruling in this dispute so far, in August 2025, went Taction's way.

Apple's defense on the merits is that the Taptic Engine works differently from Taction's patented designs [5]. In a statement to Bloomberg Law, reported by CNBC, the company said it "does not use Taction's technology" [2]. Taction's complaint accused Apple of "capitalizing on Taction's innovation and success" [9]. The suit has been in court since 2021 [6].

Cryptopolitan, which calls the award the largest patent verdict in U.S. history [8], argues that Apple's appeal record means the check may never clear [20]. The Federal Circuit erased a roughly $500 million verdict for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation in 2018, ruling jurors had no reasonable basis to find infringement [12]. Two years earlier, a Texas judge threw out a $625.6 million VirnetX verdict over FaceTime and iMessage patents and ordered new trials [13]. The Federal Circuit also canceled a $300 million Optis award, sending it to a third trial [14], and wiped out a $1.1 billion Caltech verdict on a faulty damages theory [15]. Those four came to about $2.5 billion, less than half of what one San Diego jury just awarded [18]. The list covers reversals only, and it does not say how many verdicts against Apple held up.

The case can go at least three ways from here. Judge Todd W. Robinson can cut the figure or order a fresh damages trial, the two requests Apple is expected to make when the case returns to him [11]. The Federal Circuit can vacate the damages, as it did with Caltech, or find no infringement at all, as it did with WARF [15][12]. Or the number holds. The strongest evidence for that outcome is in this docket. Robinson threw out Taction's claims in 2023 after excluding testimony from its technical expert, Dr. James Oliver, and narrowing how the patents were read [6]. In August 2025 the Federal Circuit reversed him, ruling he abused his discretion on the expert and misread the patent claims [10].

I think the infringement finding is the sturdier half of this verdict and the $5.7 billion is the half at risk. The appeals court has already backed Taction's expert and its reading of the patents once [10], and the largest reversal on Apple's list, Caltech, turned on how damages were calculated [15]. That view is wrong if Robinson leaves the figure alone and the Federal Circuit affirms it [11], and it is wrong in the other direction if Apple wins a WARF-style ruling that there was no infringement to pay for [12].

What to watch

  • Judge Todd W. Robinson's ruling on Apple's expected request to reduce the $5.7 billion or hold a new damages trial.
  • Whether Apple's Federal Circuit appeal targets the damages theory, the ground on which the $1.1 billion Caltech verdict fell.
  • The outcome of Apple's appeal of the $634 million Masimo verdict from November 2025.

Information, not investment advice. This story is general information about companies and markets, drawn from cited reporting. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security; check the cited sources before acting.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence72
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+20
Incentives60
Confidence70

Perspective Coverage

5 publishers
Builder
Builder 24%
Operator
Operator 30%
Investor
Investor 46%
Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

  1. [1]

    A federal jury in San Diego ordered Apple to pay Taction Technology $5.7 billion (CNBC: more than $5.7 billion) on Friday after finding Apple's Taptic Engine infringed two of Taction's haptic patents.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  2. [2]

    Apple vowed to appeal in a statement to Bloomberg Law, saying it "does not use Taction's technology."

    Reported Supported Source: Apple statement to Bloomberg Law, as reported by CNBCView cited source
  3. [3]

    The jury found Apple's infringement was not willful, so Taction cannot benefit from the federal patent law that lets judges triple an award in cases of serious infringement.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  4. [4]

    The disputed patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, cover systems that produce vibrations in the 40 to 200 Hz range that can be perceived through touch.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  5. [5]

    Apple has argued against the verdict and the amount, insisting its Taptic Engine works differently from the patented designs.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  6. [6]

    Taction first sued in 2021; Judge Robinson granted Apple summary judgment in 2023, throwing out Taction's claims before trial after excluding testimony from Taction's technical expert, Dr. James Oliver, and narrowing how the patents were read.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  7. [7]

    The jury trial began Sept. 14; seven jurors deliberated for two days and returned their verdict at 1:15 p.m. PT on Friday.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  8. [8]

    The $5.7 billion award is the largest patent verdict in U.S. history.

    Reported Supported Source: CryptopolitanView cited source
  9. [9]

    Taction's complaint alleged Apple was improperly "capitalizing on Taction's innovation and success" by selling devices that infringed its vibration technology.

    Reported Supported Source: Taction's complaint, as reported by CNBCView cited source
  10. [10]

    The Federal Circuit reversed the 2023 ruling in August 2025, finding the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert's opinions and misread the patent claims.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  11. [11]

    The case returns to U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson for post-trial proceedings; Apple is expected to ask him to reduce the award or order a fresh damages trial.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  12. [12]

    In 2018 the Federal Circuit erased a roughly $500 million win for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation against Apple, ruling jurors had no reasonable basis to find infringement.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  13. [13]

    Two years before the 2018 WARF ruling, a Texas judge threw out a $625.6 million VirnetX verdict against Apple over FaceTime and iMessage patents and ordered new trials.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  14. [14]

    The Federal Circuit canceled a $300 million Optis Cellular award against Apple and sent it back for a third trial.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  15. [15]

    The Federal Circuit wiped out a $1.1 billion Caltech verdict against Apple on a faulty damages theory.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  16. [16]

    A California jury awarded Masimo $634 million against Apple in November 2025 over Apple Watch health-sensor patents; Apple is appealing.

    Reported SupportedView cited source
  17. [17]

    Had the award been tripled for willful infringement, it could have reached as much as $17.1 billion, meaning up to $11.4 billion of enhancement is off the table.

    Derived Supported
  18. [18]

    The four earlier Apple verdicts cited as erased or thrown out (WARF, VirnetX, Optis, Caltech) total about $2.5 billion, less than half the $5.7 billion Taction award.

    Derived Supported
  19. [19]

    Apple now faces two unresolved device-patent verdicts totalling about $6.3 billion: the $5.7 billion Taction award and the $634 million Masimo award it is appealing.

    Derived Supported
  20. [20]

    Cryptopolitan argues that Apple's history of appealing such verdicts suggests the check may never clear.

    Reported Insufficient Source: CryptopolitanView cited source

Sources

5 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.

  1. aljazeera.com

    1 article · September 28, 2026

    Apple ordered to pay $5.7bn in patent infringement case | Business and Economy News | Al Jazeera
  2. cnbc.com

    1 article · September 26, 2026

    Apple faces $5.7 billion patent infringement verdict over iPhone and Apple Watch haptics
  3. cryptopolitan.com

    2 articles · September 26, 2026

    Apple hit with record $5.7B patent verdict it may never pay
  4. livemint.com

    1 article · September 27, 2026

    Apple faces $5.7 billion hit over tech that makes iPhones ‘tap’ back - All you need to know | Company Business News
  5. pymnts.com

    2 articles · September 27, 2026

    Apple Ordered to Pay $5.7 Billion in Haptic Patent Lawsuit

Topics and entities

Topics

Entities

  • Apple
  • Todd W. Robinson
  • Taction Technology
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit