Taction wins a $5.7 billion verdict against Apple over the haptic part in iPhones and Apple Watches

A message arrives and the watch taps the wrist. A press on an iPhone answers with a short buzz. Both come from the Taptic Engine, the hardware Apple uses for haptic feedback on notifications, button presses and other interactions ^[4]. Taction's two patents describe a "vibration module for applying vibrational tractions to a wearer's skin" ^[6]. According to The Verge, CNBC described both as "vibration-based, tactile transducer technology that helps users feel a device responding to their input" ^[5].

I think most hardware teams work from a simple model of patent risk. In that model, risk follows copying, and a part you designed yourself is safe. Taction gave the jury the copying story, with its reverse-engineering charge ^[16] and its argument that Apple was "capitalizing on Taction's innovation and success" ^[10]. The jury did not find willful infringement ^[3] and still awarded $5.7 billion ^[1].

Time adds to the exposure. Taction sued in 2021 ^[7], when the Taptic Engine had been in Apple Watch for about seven years ^[18]. Taction's lead counsel told CNBC: "We're happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights. Taction waited five and a half years for this case to get to trial, so it was a long time coming." ^[13]

Apple's spokesperson said: "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." ^[8] The spokesperson also said: "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." ^[9] The reports do not give Taction's revenue or headcount, and they do not show how the jury arrived at $5.7 billion.

This verdict matters most to the people who sign off parts, more than to Apple's lawyers. The test I would apply has two axes. The first is reach. A part can sit in one product, or it can sit in every unit across several lines, as the Taptic Engine does across Apple's watches and phones ^[11]. The second is search scope. A freedom-to-operate review can be run once at design-in against your own product's vocabulary, or it can be refreshed later against patents written for other products that use the same physical effect. A haptic headset is one example ^[12]. The corner that needs work holds parts that ship in every unit and were reviewed once, in their own category. I would re-run those reviews and leave single-product parts on their design-in clearance. That costs counsel hours and slows the sourcing calendar, but only for a short list of parts.