Apple Ordered to Pay $5.72 Billion in Haptic Technology Patent Case: A Legal Analysis of the Largest Patent Damages Award in U.S. History

On September 25, 2026, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found that Apple Inc. infringed two haptic feedback technology patents owned by Taction Technology Inc. and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750 in damages. The amount is the largest patent infringement damages award in U.S. history, approximately 2.5 times the $2.18 billion verdict against Intel in VLSI v. Intel in 2021. The jury also found that Apple’s infringement was not willful, a finding with significant legal consequences for the case.

The two patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 (the ’885 patent) and 10,820,117 (the ’117 patent). They share a common specification and relate to haptic transducer technology that generates low-frequency vibrations for tactile perception. The technology enables users to perceive, through the skin, physical feedback from their operation of a device.

Taction alleged that Apple’s Taptic Engine, a haptic feedback system widely used in iPhones and Apple Watches, used the patented technology without authorization. The Taptic Engine first appeared in the Apple Watch in 2014 and was introduced into the iPhone line with the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus in 2015. It has since become a core component of Apple’s device haptic feedback mechanism.

Taction sued Apple in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging direct and indirect infringement. Apple denied infringement and asserted that the patents-in-suit were invalid.

In 2023, U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson in San Diego granted summary judgment of non-infringement, and the case was dismissed. Taction then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On August 13, 2025, the CAFC vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that the district court had abused its discretion by excluding Taction’s expert testimony. The district court had misconstrued Local Patent Rule 3.1(c) and improperly excluded Taction’s expert opinion on infringement.

The retrial began on September 14, 2026. After approximately two days of deliberation, the seven-person jury returned its verdict on September 25.

The $5,721,961,750 damages award is not punitive damages. It was calculated based on a reasonable royalty methodology. According to analysis, the calculation was based on cumulative shipments of the accused models in the United States and certain global regions over recent years, multiplied by a reasonable per-unit royalty rate for each patent. This shipment-volume-based approach is a typical example of applying the reasonable royalty standard in patent infringement damages.

The jury’s finding that Apple’s infringement was not willful has multiple legal implications under patent law:

First, it precludes enhanced damages. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a court may increase a damages award up to three times the amount found. Willful infringement is a typical basis for treble damages. Because the jury did not find willfulness, Taction cannot seek enhanced damages on that basis.

Second, it precludes fee shifting. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, in “exceptional cases,” a court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Willful infringement is generally regarded as an important factor in establishing an “exceptional case.” The non-willfulness finding reduces the likelihood that Taction will obtain fee shifting.

Third, it affects the subsequent appeal. On appeal, Apple can rely on the non-willfulness finding to argue further that its conduct was reasonable, thereby strengthening its appellate arguments against the infringement finding itself.

In a statement after the verdict, Apple said: “While we appreciate the jury’s deliberations, we strongly disagree with today’s verdict and the damages awarded, which are entirely unsupported by the facts. Apple’s Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology, as Taction’s own testing of Apple’s products during trial confirmed. Apple did not use Taction’s technology, and we will appeal.”