Can a jury verdict be reversed? Apple is about to find out on a scale US patent law has not seen before. On Friday 25 September 2026 a federal jury in San Diego found that the Taptic Engine inside iPhones and Apple Watches infringed two haptics patents owned by Taction Technology and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750, a figure Reuters described as a record for a US patent case. Apple told CNBC that it "strongly disagree[s]" with the verdict and the damages and "will appeal". This analysis sets out exactly what the jury decided, how the case reached trial, and the legal routes by which a judge or the Federal Circuit could cut, erase or, in principle, add to the award, with a comparison against earlier record verdicts that did not survive review.
What the jury decided on 25 September 2026
The short answer is that the jury found infringement, upheld the validity of the three claims tried, rejected wilfulness and awarded just over $5.72 billion. The case is Taction Tech. Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00812, in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, before US District Judge Todd W. Robinson. Taction filed suit in April 2021. According to CNBC, the jury trial began on 14 September 2026 and the seven jurors deliberated for two days before returning their verdict at 1.15pm Pacific time on the Friday.
Reporting on the verdict form, AppleInsider records that Taction proved infringement of two claims of one patent and one claim of the other, that Apple failed to prove any of the three claims invalid, and that Taction had not proved wilful infringement. Reuters reported that Apple had denied the allegations and argued that the patents were invalid. The patents are US Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117.
| Issue | Jury finding (as reported) | Why it matters next |
|---|---|---|
| Infringement | Apple infringed three claims: two of one patent, one of the other | Target of Apple's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law |
| Validity | Apple did not prove the three claims invalid | Validity can be re-argued post-trial and on appeal |
| Wilfulness | Not wilful | Makes enhanced damages under 35 USC 284 unlikely |
| Damages | $5,721,961,750 | Open to remittitur, a new trial or reversal |
| Accused products | iPhones and Apple Watches with the Taptic Engine | Scope of any ongoing royalty or injunction argument |
Two further points shape what happens next. First, the verdict is not yet a judgment: USA Herald reported that a formal final judgment had not been entered on the docket in the days after the verdict. Second, the case is funded. Bloomberg Law reported that discovery showed Taction received financing from Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP, and that Kenosha has been identified in separate litigation as an indirect subsidiary of Burford Capital. For advisers comparing US and English funding regimes, our explainer on what litigation funding is in the UK after PACCAR covers the other side of the Atlantic.
The Taptic Engine patents and the technology in dispute
Both patents claim a damped vibration module that moves a mass in a plane to produce touch sensations, which Taction says Apple's Taptic Engine uses. The patents share a specification that relates, in the Federal Circuit's words, "to tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations for perception by touch". Claim 1 of the '885 patent, which the appeal court treated as representative, recites a housing, coils, magnets, a moving portion comprising an inertial mass, a suspension of flexures guiding planar motion, and a ferrofluid in contact with the moving portion that damps movement and reduces a mechanical resonance within the 40 to 200 Hz range.
Apple's Taptic Engine is the component that produces the taps and vibrations users feel for alerts and on-screen interactions. 9to5Mac notes that it arrived in the Apple Watch in 2014 and in the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus in 2015. Taction, a San Diego company, uses its technology in headphones and gaming headsets, according to Reuters.
Apple's position is that its hardware works differently. Its statement said the Taptic Engine "is fundamentally different from Taction's technology, which Taction's own testing of Apple's products confirmed during trial", and that "Apple does not use Taction's technology". Taction's lead counsel, Lance Yang of Quinn Emanuel, told CNBC the company was "happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights", adding that it had waited five and a half years to reach trial. Those competing accounts of the technology will now be tested again, this time against the written trial record rather than in front of a jury. Companies with intellectual property exposure in consumer hardware will be watching how the court treats the damping evidence in particular.
How the case got here: dismissal in 2023 and revival in 2025
Taction's claim was thrown out once before and came back only because the Federal Circuit found the trial judge had gone wrong. In 2023 Judge Robinson granted Apple summary judgment of non-infringement. According to the Federal Circuit's opinion of 13 August 2025, he did so on two grounds: he struck the infringement opinions of Taction's technical expert, Dr James Oliver, and he held that even without that ruling the accused products did not meet a revised construction of "highly damped output".
The Federal Circuit, in a nonprecedential opinion by Chief Judge Moore, vacated the judgment and sent the case back. It held that the district court abused its discretion by reading an unwritten "how" requirement into Local Patent Rule 3.1(c) of the Southern District of California, which required infringement contentions to show where each claim element is found, but not how. It also found the alternative reason for striking Dr Oliver's opinions unreasonable, given that his reading of "highly damped output" matched the construction the court itself later adopted.
On claim construction the result was mixed for Taction:
- Disclaimer upheld. The appeal court agreed the claims are limited to "transducers with highly damped output", because of a statement made during prosecution of the parent application.
- No mechanical-only limit. It rejected the requirement that the damping be achieved mechanically, because nothing in the claims or specification limited the type of damping. That mattered because Taction's theory relied on the Taptic Engine's closed-loop software controller working with ferrofluid.
- No Q-factor ceiling. It rejected the requirement of a Q-factor below 1.5, finding no clear disavowal in the specification.
That procedural history matters now. It is the same appeal court that will hear Apple's appeal, and the arguments about damping, software control and claim scope that won Taction a trial are likely to reappear as arguments about whether the evidence supported the verdict.
How the $5.7bn figure was reached, and what is not yet public
US patent law sets a floor, not a formula: a winning patentee must receive damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, and never less than a reasonable royalty. The text of 35 USC 284 requires the court to award "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court". Damages are usually proved through expert evidence on a hypothetical negotiation between the parties at the time infringement began, using comparable licences, the value of the patented feature and the number of units sold.
How the jury arrived at $5,721,961,750 has not been set out in the public reporting reviewed for this article. None of the reports from CNBC, Bloomberg Law, Reuters or AppleInsider disclosed the royalty rate, the royalty base, the unit numbers or the figure Taction's damages expert asked for, and the verdict form as reported gives a single total. The precision of the number suggests a per-unit calculation rather than a rounded lump sum, but that is an inference, not a reported fact. Two statutory limits frame the period in issue: 35 USC 286 bars recovery for infringement committed more than six years before the complaint was filed. Where exactly the damages period began, and how the jury treated older and newer devices, will only become clear from the trial record.
Apple's statement attacks the award directly, calling it "entirely unsupported by the facts". Expect that challenge to be the centre of the post-trial briefing. For in-house teams, the question to put to licensing and royalty advisers is less whether the number is high, which it plainly is, and more whether the expert methodology behind it will survive the stricter scrutiny the Federal Circuit now applies, discussed below.
Can a judge overrule a jury's verdict? The post-trial motions
Yes: a US federal judge can set aside a jury's findings, order a new trial, or cut the damages, but only on defined grounds. Three tools matter here, and Apple is expected to use all of them before Judge Robinson.
- Renewed judgment as a matter of law. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, a court may enter judgment against a party where "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue". A renewed motion under Rule 50(b) must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. Apple could ask for judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, or no damages.
- A new trial. Rule 59 allows a new trial on all or some issues, also on a motion filed within 28 days of judgment. A new trial can be limited to damages, which is what happened in EcoFactor and VLSI.
- Remittitur. Where the court considers an award excessive, it can offer the patentee a choice between accepting a reduced figure and facing a new damages trial. The patentee cannot be forced to take the lower number without that choice.
Judges defer heavily to juries on disputed facts, so a post-trial motion usually succeeds only where the evidence could not support the finding, the jury was misdirected, or inadmissible evidence reached it. Where expert testimony on damages was flawed, the remedy is often a fresh damages trial rather than a lower award imposed by the judge. The timetable depends on when judgment is entered, and briefing on motions of this size typically runs for months. Dispute resolution and litigation advisers will read the eventual order closely, because it fixes the record that goes to the Federal Circuit.
Why the wilfulness finding matters: enhanced damages under 35 USC 284
The finding that Apple did not infringe wilfully largely removes the risk that the court will increase the award. Section 284 lets the court "increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed". In Halo Electronics v Pulse Electronics (2016), the Supreme Court held that the decision is for the district court's discretion, but that enhanced damages "are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case" and are "designed as a sanction for egregious infringement behavior".
Wilfulness is not a formal precondition in the statute, but in practice courts reserve enhancement for deliberate or egregious conduct, and a jury finding of no wilfulness points firmly the other way. Law Commentary noted that the finding removes one potential basis for Taction to seek a trebled award. On the numbers, trebling would have put nominal exposure above $17 billion; that scenario now looks remote. The same finding may also weaken any claim to attorneys' fees, which 35 USC 285 allows only in "exceptional cases".
Interest, bonds and the size of the eventual bill
The $5.72 billion headline is not the final number, because interest is added and Apple must secure the judgment if it wants to stop enforcement while it appeals. In General Motors v Devex (1983), the Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest "should ordinarily be awarded" in patent cases absent some justification for withholding it, so that the patentee is put in the position it would have been in had a royalty been paid. On an infringement period stretching back several years, that can add a large sum, although the rate and compounding are for the judge.
Once judgment is entered, post-judgment interest runs under 28 USC 1961 at a rate tied to the weekly average one-year constant maturity Treasury yield for the week before judgment. To pause execution during an appeal, Rule 62 allows a party to obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. For a company of Apple's size, the practical question is the form and cost of that security, not its availability. Our report on the release of the Carroll judgment funds shows how security posted during an appeal is ultimately paid out once appeals are exhausted.
The damages expert question after EcoFactor v Google
The single biggest legal development for Apple's damages challenge is the Federal Circuit's en banc ruling in EcoFactor v Google, which tightened the rules on patent damages experts. On 21 May 2025 the full court, in an opinion by Chief Judge Moore, held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting a damages expert's opinion that was not based on sufficient facts or data under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The expert had told the jury that three earlier licensees agreed to a per-unit rate, relying on recitals in the licences that stated only EcoFactor's belief about the rate. The court reversed the denial of Google's motion for a new trial and ordered a new trial on damages; the jury had awarded $20,019,300.
The case matters because it treats the judge as a gatekeeper who must test whether the facts an expert relies on actually support the opinion, rather than leaving weaknesses to cross-examination. The opinion stressed that the distinction between the judge's gatekeeping role and the jury's role is "particularly essential in the context of patent damages". Any award of this size will be examined for the same flaw: whether each input in the royalty calculation, from comparable licences to apportionment of value to the patented feature, is grounded in the evidence. Parties preparing for that argument usually bring in valuation and damages experts early, well before the appeal.
Can Apple still challenge the patents at the PTAB?
Apple has already tried and failed to have the patents reviewed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and a fresh petition is now largely time-barred. Records of IPR2022-00060 show Apple petitioned on 21 October 2021 for inter partes review of claims 16 and 17 of the '117 patent, arguing obviousness over earlier Japanese and US references. Quinn Emanuel, which represents Taction, states that Apple filed four such petitions against the asserted patents and that the Board declined to institute review on all four.
Under 35 USC 315(b), an inter partes review may not be instituted on a petition filed more than one year after the petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. Because the Board never reached a final written decision, the statutory estoppel that bars a petitioner from later raising grounds it raised or could have raised does not appear to have been triggered, which left Apple free to run its invalidity case at trial. It lost that argument before the jury, and it can renew it post-trial and on appeal. The USPTO's guidance on inter partes review sets out the wider framework. Readers comparing the US system with Europe's new court may find our analysis of UPC patent litigation and InterDigital v Disney useful, since the UPC combines infringement and revocation in one forum.
The Federal Circuit appeal
Any appeal from the final judgment goes to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in patent cases from district courts under 28 USC 1295. It is the court that revived Taction's claim in 2025, and it is also the court that has overturned or reduced several of the largest patent verdicts of the last decade.
On appeal Apple can attack claim construction, which the Federal Circuit reviews afresh, the sufficiency of the infringement and validity evidence, the admission of expert testimony and the damages award. Procedural rulings such as the exclusion of expert evidence are reviewed under the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit, for abuse of discretion, as the 2025 opinion in this very case explained. Taction may cross-appeal, for example on wilfulness if the trial court's rulings give it grounds.
Taction's status as a company that makes products, rather than a pure licensing entity, could also matter to any request for an injunction or an ongoing royalty. Under the Supreme Court's four-factor test in eBay v MercExchange (2006), a permanent injunction is not automatic. No request for an injunction had been reported by 28 September, and on the reporting so far the monetary award, rather than any bar on the Taptic Engine, looks set to remain the main battleground.
How the verdict compares with other record US patent awards
On the reporting to date, the Taction award is the largest US patent verdict, but earlier record awards show how often the headline figure changes on review. The comparison below uses only outcomes confirmed by the court record or reputable reporting.
| Case | Jury award | What happened next |
|---|---|---|
| Taction v Apple (S.D. Cal., 2026) | $5,721,961,750 | Post-trial motions and appeal expected; Apple says it will appeal |
| Verdict against Gilead Sciences (2016) | $2.54bn | Wiped out after the claims were found invalid, according to USA Herald |
| VLSI v Intel (W.D. Tex., 2021) | $1.5bn and $675m on two patents | Federal Circuit in December 2023 reversed infringement of one patent and vacated the $1.5bn award, ordering a new damages trial |
| Caltech v Apple and Broadcom (C.D. Cal.) | About $1.1bn ($837.8m Apple, $270.2m Broadcom) | Federal Circuit in February 2022 vacated the damages and ordered a new trial |
| Masimo v Apple (November 2025) | $634m | Apple planning to appeal, according to Engadget |
The VLSI v Intel opinion held that the damages award for one patent could not stand and that infringement of the second patent had not been proved. In the Caltech case, IPWatchdog reported that the Federal Circuit found the two-tier damages theory, which sought different royalty rates from Apple and Broadcom for the same accused technology, was not supported on the record. Engadget also recalled that Apple previously settled haptics claims brought by Immersion for an undisclosed amount. Apple's patent disputes outside the US follow a different pattern: our report on Apple's fight over a $502m Optis FRAND bill at the UK Supreme Court shows the English courts setting licence terms rather than juries setting damages.
What in-house counsel and advisers should take from the verdict
For companies that sell hardware in the US, the practical lessons concern evidence, timing and funding rather than haptics. Industry observers are likely to draw five points from the case so far:
- Summary judgment is not the end. A win on a narrow claim construction or expert ruling can be undone on appeal years later, as it was here, leaving a component that has shipped for a decade exposed to a jury.
- Damages evidence is now the key battleground. After EcoFactor, the reliability of every input to the royalty calculation is a question for the judge, and it is where large awards are most vulnerable.
- Wilfulness defences pay off. The no-wilfulness finding has likely kept billions of dollars of enhancement off the table.
- PTAB timing is unforgiving. Once the one-year window closes, a defendant that loses at institution must rely on the court to test validity.
- Funded claimants can go the distance. Third-party funding allowed a small company to litigate for more than five years against one of the world's best-resourced defendants.
The verdict also sits within a wider run of legal pressure on large technology companies, from the six-year monitor imposed on Google's ad-tech business to Apple's own disputes over its gatekeeper status under the EU's Digital Markets Act and encrypted data before a UK tribunal. Businesses assessing their own exposure can find US-qualified advisers, including California litigators and technology, media and telecoms specialists, through the Corporate INTL directory.
So can a jury verdict be reversed? It can, and the record of the largest awards suggests the $5.72 billion figure is the start of the next phase rather than the end of the case. The jury has spoken on infringement, validity and wilfulness. The judge will now decide whether the evidence supports those findings and the number, and the Federal Circuit will have the last word.
Frequently asked questions
Can a jury verdict be reversed?
Yes. In a US federal case the trial judge can grant judgment as a matter of law, order a new trial or reduce damages through remittitur, and the losing party can appeal. Apple has said it will appeal the Taction verdict, which would go to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after post-trial motions are decided.
Can a judge overrule a jury's verdict?
A federal judge can set aside a jury verdict under Rule 50 if no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the finding, or order a new trial under Rule 59. Judges defer heavily to juries on disputed facts, so these motions succeed mainly where evidence was insufficient or legally flawed.
How much does Apple owe Taction?
The jury awarded Taction Technology $5,721,961,750 on 25 September 2026. Interest and costs may be added when judgment is entered, and the figure could be reduced or set aside on post-trial motions or appeal. Apple says the damages are entirely unsupported by the facts.
Which patents did Apple's Taptic Engine infringe?
The jury found infringement of claims of US Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, both owned by Taction. They cover damped vibration modules for tactile feedback, including ferrofluid damping that reduces resonance in the 40 to 200 Hz range. Reports say two claims of one patent and one of the other were infringed.
Was Apple's infringement found to be wilful?
No. The jury found the infringement was not wilful. That matters because 35 USC 284 allows a court to increase damages up to three times, but the Supreme Court in Halo v Pulse reserved enhancement for egregious conduct. The finding makes a trebled award very unlikely.
How are patent infringement damages calculated?
Under 35 USC 284 a patentee receives damages adequate to compensate for infringement and at least a reasonable royalty, plus interest and costs. Royalties are usually estimated by experts modelling a hypothetical licence negotiation, drawing on comparable licences, the value of the patented feature and sales volumes. The Taction calculation has not been publicly detailed.
Is the Taction verdict the largest patent verdict in US history?
Reuters reported the $5.7 billion award as a record US patent verdict, and other outlets described it as the largest in US history. Earlier record awards, including $2.18 billion against Intel for VLSI and about $1.1 billion for Caltech against Apple and Broadcom, were later vacated in whole or part by the Federal Circuit.
Can Apple still challenge the patents at the Patent Office?
Apple filed inter partes review petitions in 2021, and Taction's lawyers say the Board declined to institute all four. A new petition is generally barred more than one year after the defendant is served with the infringement complaint, so Apple's validity challenge now runs mainly through the court and the appeal.
What happens next in Taction v Apple?
Judgment must be entered, after which Apple is expected to file motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial or a reduced award, and Taction may seek interest. The losing party can then appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court that revived Taction's case in August 2025.
Sources
- CNBC: Apple faces $5.7 billion patent infringement verdict over iPhone and Apple Watch haptics (26 September 2026)
- Bloomberg Law: Apple Owes $5.7 Billion for Infringement of Haptics Patents (September 2026)
- Reuters: US jury says Apple owes record $5.7 billion in haptic technology patent case (September 2026)
- AppleInsider: Apple owes Taction $5.7B after losing haptic feedback IP trial (26 September 2026)
- 9to5Mac: Apple hit with $5.7 billion verdict over Taptic Engine patent infringement (27 September 2026)
- Law Commentary: Apple Hit With $5.7 Billion Patent Verdict Over Technology Inside iPhones and Apple Watches (September 2026)
- USA Herald: Apple Stunned by Record $5.72 Billion Patent Verdict (27 September 2026)
- Engadget: Apple hit with a $5.7 billion verdict for alleged patent infringement (September 2026)
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2023-2349 (13 August 2025)
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (en banc): EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2023-1101 (21 May 2025)
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 2022-1906 (4 December 2023)
- IPWatchdog: CAFC Orders New Trial on Damages in Appeal of Caltech's $1.1 Billion Win Against Apple and Broadcom (7 February 2022)
- 35 USC 284: Damages
- 35 USC 285: Attorney fees
- 35 USC 286: Time limitation on damages
- 35 USC 315: Relation to other proceedings or actions
- 28 USC 1295: Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- 28 USC 1961: Interest
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (US Supreme Court, 2016)
- General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (US Supreme Court, 1983)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (US Supreme Court, 2006)
- Ex Parte: IPR2022-00060, Apple Inc. v. Taction Technology Inc.
- Quinn Emanuel: Post-Grant Practice
- USPTO: Inter Partes Review
About this article
This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the Federal Circuit's 2025 opinion in the case, the relevant statutes and rules, the en banc EcoFactor ruling and primary reporting of the verdict. The verdict form, the trial transcript and the parties' damages evidence had not been published at the time of writing, and judgment had not been reported as entered. This article is general information, not legal advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 28 September 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.
