A new filing suggests that not only does Apple not violate Taction's patents, but the jury arrived at the record $5.7 billion in damages "based on guesswork" and should be tossed.

In April 2021, Taction Technology sued Apple for allegedly infringing on two Taction patents dealing with haptic feedback. It argued that Apple's Taptic Engine used in the Apple Watch was a reverse-engineered copy of the technology.

A jury ruled in favor of Taction in September, finding that Apple infringed, though not willfully. A new filing from Apple on Tuesday states that not only did the jury award the damages based on guesswork, but that the findings themselves are contradictory.

The $5.7 billion fine sets a record in patent law by more than $3 billion. Taction didn't set that rate, but instead asked the jury to "award a reasonable royalty that y'all think is appropriate."

Apple's claims and request

Given that the jury wasn't provided materials to formulate the damages payment, it seems they arrived at that number through guesswork. This goes against precedent and that case law "does not require an award of damages if none are proven."

On top of that, Apple argues that its Taptic Engine is demonstrably different from Taction's patented technologies. It argues that tests performed to prove Apple's guilt actually proved the opposite.

The patent covers highly damped output from the transducer while Apple's relies on resonance that isn't damped at all. In spite of these clear differences, the jury found Apple guilty of violating the patents.

Apple argues that there are three reasons the claims are invalid:

  • First, any juror who accepts Dr. Oliver's test must find there are at least two methods for measuring "highly damped output" that produce opposite results, rendering the claims indefinite.
  • Second, under Taction's reading, the claims cover technology that the patents never describe, and a skilled artisan's background knowledge cannot fill that gap.
  • Third, the specification does not enable a skilled artisan to make or use Apple's controller.

Basically, in finding Dr. Oliver's tests accurate for determining the case, they contradict the verdict itself. Apple argues that Taction is reading the patent one way for determining infringement, then reading it another way for determining invalidity.

Apple wants the court to enter judgement as a matter of law that Taction is entitled to no damages, that Apple does not infringe the asserted claims, and that the asserted claims are invalid. If not, Apple wants a new trial on infringement, invalidity, and damages to determine if damages are owed, how much they should actually be.

As with every lawsuit Apple is in, there will no doubt be more appeals until some resolution is reached.