The feature that makes an Apple Watch feel like an Apple Watch, the small tap on your wrist when a notification arrives, has just produced one of the largest patent verdicts in American history.
On September 25, 2026, a federal jury in San Diego found that Apple infringed two patents owned by Taction Technology Inc. covering haptic feedback, and awarded Taction $5,721,961,750.
Apple has said it will appeal. It is worth understanding why the number is both enormous and unusually soft.
The Verdict, Precisely
The case is Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00812, in the Southern District of California before Judge Todd W. Robinson.
The jury found infringement of three specific claims across two patents, US Patent 10,659,885 and US Patent 10,820,117:
- Claims 17 and 19 of the 885 patent
- Claim 16 of the 117 patent
The damages figure the jury wrote in was $5,721,961,750. It found that the infringement was not willful, and it rejected Apple's invalidity defences, which Apple had to prove by clear and convincing evidence.
Two procedural details matter later. Seven jurors were present and the jury was not polled, and the court's docket does not yet show an entered judgment. The damages figure is also a single lump sum, with no breakdown by patent, by product, or by time period.
Why the Apple Watch Is at the Centre of It
The Taptic Engine debuted in the Apple Watch in 2014, and arrived in the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus the following year, replacing the older vibration motor. It is the component that produces the taps, clicks and notification buzzes across most of Apple's current hardware.
Taction's patents, per the Federal Circuit's description, cover "tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations for perception by touch." Taction calls its version a "vibration module for applying vibrational tractions to a wearer's skin," and the company uses the technology in headphones and gaming headsets rather than watches.
Taction's argument was that Apple was "capitalizing on Taction's innovation and success."
Five Years to Get to a Jury
The path to this verdict is a case study in how long patent litigation takes.
Taction filed suit on April 26, 2021. Apple petitioned for inter partes review of every asserted claim, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of all four petitions on April 18, 2022.
On August 11, 2023, the district court granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement. The court struck the infringement opinions of Taction's expert, Dr. James Oliver, and construed the claims' "highly damped output" requirement to mean both mechanical damping and a Q-factor below 1.5. The court later denied Apple's motion for attorney fees in October 2023, describing the dispute as "a heavily litigated but ultimately run-of-the-mill patent case."
Then it turned. On August 13, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that striking Dr. Oliver's opinions under an unwritten "how" requirement was an abuse of discretion. The panel agreed the claims are limited to transducers with highly damped output, but held they are not limited to mechanical damping or to a Q-factor below 1.5.
That decision reopened the case and narrowed what Apple had to prove. Trial began September 14, 2026. The verdict came on the ninth day.
Why the $5.7 Billion Is Vulnerable
This is the part most coverage has skipped, and it is the most important thing to know about the number.
Four days before the case went to the jury, on September 23, Apple filed a Rule 50(a) motion arguing the evidence cannot support the award. Among its points: the court had excluded the reasonable-royalty opinion of Apple's damages expert, Dr. Kennedy, in its entirety, and the jury therefore heard no royalty rate to anchor a figure.
Apple also argued that the jury heard no licensing rate from Taction's own license with Corsair, which covers the Corsair HS60 headset, and that no evidence in the record supports an apportioned royalty, meaning one that reflects only the value the patents contribute rather than the whole product.
Read that against the verdict form. The jury wrote a single number with no breakdown, after hearing no expert damages opinion telling it what a reasonable royalty would be. Juries do not arrive at $5,721,961,750 by accident, but the record behind that figure is thin enough that the damages case is the obvious target on appeal.
Expect post-trial motions to focus on damages, alongside Apple's arguments that the accused Taptic Engines are undamped linear resonant actuators outside the claims, and that the patents fail the written description, enablement and definiteness requirements.
Not Willful, Which Limits the Exposure
The willfulness finding is a real win for Apple, and it caps the downside.
Because the jury found the infringement was not willful, Taction cannot seek treble damages, which would have pushed the exposure toward $17 billion. The award is compensatory rather than punitive. The jury separately rejected Apple's argument that the patents are invalid.
Apple's Response
Apple's statement was pointed, and it leans on Taction's own trial evidence:
"While we thank the jury for their consideration, 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, which Taction's own testing of Apple's products confirmed during trial. Apple does not use Taction's technology, and we will appeal."
Taction's counsel said the company had waited roughly five years to get to trial and was pleased the patent rights had been vindicated.
Apple Has Been Here Before
Haptic patents have cost Apple before, and a much bigger Apple Watch case is already in progress.
Immersion previously sued Apple over haptic technology in iPhones, Apple Watches and MacBooks, and the dispute settled for an undisclosed amount before trial.
More significantly, Apple is appealing a $634 million verdict in its blood-oxygen dispute with Masimo, handed down by another federal jury in November. That case goes to the core of a health feature on the watch rather than a haptic detail, and it carries the greater product risk, as we saw when Apple shipped the hypertension feature to only 33 countries.
So this verdict is large, but it is not the patent case that most threatens the Apple Watch.
What This Means for Your Watch
Nothing changes in the short term, and probably not for years.
There is no injunction. Apple will keep selling iPhones and Apple Watches with the Taptic Engine exactly as they ship today. A verdict is not a judgment, and an appeal to the Federal Circuit follows a long schedule that regularly runs two to four years. Many patent verdicts are reduced, retried on damages, or reversed.
The realistic outcomes are a negotiated settlement at a much lower number, a damages retrial, or an affirmance after years of litigation. The least likely outcome is Apple writing a $5.7 billion cheque in the near future.
What the verdict does establish, for now, is that a jury in San Diego believed Apple's Taptic Engine reads on two Taction claims. That finding is the part Apple has to overturn, and it is harder to undo than the number attached to it.
Bottom Line
A San Diego federal jury ruled on September 25 that Apple owes Taction Technology $5,721,961,750 for infringing claims in US Patents 10,659,885 and 10,820,117 with the Taptic Engine used in its iPhones and Apple Watches. The Taptic Engine first shipped in the Apple Watch in 2014.
The jury found the infringement was not willful, so there is no treble damages exposure. Apple filed a Rule 50(a) motion days before the verdict arguing the damages evidence cannot be sustained, and the jury awarded one unapportioned figure after hearing no expert reasonable-royalty opinion at all. Apple says it will appeal, and it is appealing a separate $634 million Masimo verdict over blood oxygen at the same time.
No feature is going away, and no payment is imminent. But the largest patent verdict of its kind now hangs over the tap on your wrist.
Sources: Reuters and Bloomberg Law reporting on the September 25, 2026 jury verdict in Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-00812, including the $5,721,961,750 award, the non-willfulness finding, the two asserted patents and the asserted claims 17 and 19 of US 10,659,885 and claim 16 of US 10,820,117, and Apple's statement that it will appeal; the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's August 13, 2025 opinion in Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc. vacating and remanding the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement, including its holdings on the "highly damped output" limitation, the rejection of the mechanical damping and Q-factor limits, and the abuse of discretion in striking Dr. Oliver's opinions; the patent litigation analysis of the verdict and of Apple's September 23, 2026 Rule 50(a) motion, including the exclusion of Dr. Kennedy's reasonable-royalty opinion, the absence of any royalty rate from the Corsair HS60 license, the apportionment arguments, and the procedural details of the verdict and minute entry; coverage of Apple's earlier Immersion haptic litigation and its undisclosed settlement; and reporting on the November jury verdict in Apple's blood-oxygen patent dispute with Masimo, including the $634 million award and Apple's appeal.