Apple is petitioning a federal judge to reverse a $5.7 billion verdict in a patent infringement case filed by Taction Technology concerning the Taptic Engine found in iPhones and Apple Watches. Below are the key details.
‘Impermissible guesswork on a massive scale’”
A few weeks back, a jury mandated Apple to pay $5.7 billion for infringing two patents owned by Taction Technology, which relate to the Taptic Engine that currently drives haptic feedback across its products.
At the time, Apple stated it strongly disagreed with the jury’s verdict and the damages awarded, which it described as “entirely unsupported by the facts.”
Apple emphasized its technology was “fundamentally different” from what is covered by Taction’s two patents, and announced intentions to appeal.
Today, Apple submitted a new motion asking the court to overturn the jury’s verdict, arguing that Taction failed to present sufficient evidence to support any damages award, let alone $5.7 billion, which the company notes is “the largest patent verdict in history, by more than $3 billion.”
Apple adds that before the trial, the court excluded the analysis by Taction’s damages expert due to flaws in how the expert calculated royalties from a previous licensing agreement, and that the expert was later barred from testifying altogether.
Apple also points out that Taction never presented evidence establishing how much its patented technology was worth. Instead, it simply asked jurors to award whatever they considered a reasonable royalty, leaving them “with no choice but to engage in impermissible guesswork on a massive scale.”
From Apple’s motion:
Taction told the jury it was “just looking for a reasonable royalty for its contribution,” […], but never offered evidence of what that contribution was worth. Instead, it asked the jury to “award a reasonable royalty that y’all think is appropriate.” […] Taction failed to meet its burden to present evidence that would allow the jury to “adequately tie a dollar amount to the infringing acts,” […].
Without any such evidence, the jury was left to speculate, contrary to the Court’s instructions and binding Federal Circuit case law.
Taction told the jury it was “just looking for a reasonable royalty for its contribution,” […], but never offered evidence of what that contribution was worth. Instead, it asked the jury to “award a reasonable royalty that y’all think is appropriate.” […] Taction failed to meet its burden to present evidence that would allow the jury to “adequately tie a dollar amount to the infringing acts,” […].
Without any such evidence, the jury was left to speculate, contrary to the Court’s instructions and binding Federal Circuit case law.
Apple also notes that, before the award was announced, the judge told attorneys he was ‘not sure that the figure that appears on the verdict form is what the jury meant to convey,’ raising questions about whether the $5.7 billion figure was what the jury actually intended.
In a more striking accusation, Apple argues that one of Taction’s key technical experts, Dr. Oliver, relied on a “rigged” test to support his findings of patent infringement.
In essence, both Taction patents in question describe a technology designed to produce consistent vibrations across different frequencies. Apple argues that its Taptic Engine works differently, producing much stronger vibrations at certain frequencies than at others.
The company goes on to allege that Dr. Oliver developed a new testing method specifically for the lawsuit, which measured how Apple’s electronic control system could regulate the Taptic Engine’s vibrations, rather than whether the underlying hardware met the patents’ requirements.
From the filing:
No reasonable juror could find that “the output of the transducer is highly damped” in the accused products, as required by the Court’s construction. Rather than assess highly damped output by using the test in the patent, Taction’s infringement theory rested on a legally erroneous test rigged by Dr.
No reasonable juror could find that “the output of the transducer is highly damped” in the accused products, as required by the Court’s construction. Rather than assess highly damped output by using the test in the patent, Taction’s infringement theory rested on a legally erroneous test rigged by Dr.
Oliver for this case. The only evidence of the transducer’s actual output, including Taction’s pre-filing and infringement contentions testing, was introduced by Apple and those tests showed a peaked response that Dr.
Oliver conceded was not highly damped.
Oliver for this case. The only evidence of the transducer’s actual output, including Taction’s pre-filing and infringement contentions testing, was introduced by Apple and those tests showed a peaked response that Dr.
Oliver conceded was not highly damped.
Finally, Apple argues that if Taction’s interpretation of its patents is accepted, the patent claims at issue would themselves be invalid. According to the company, the testing method used to establish infringement contradicts the method described in the patents, making it impossible to clearly determine what the patents actually cover.
For these reasons, Apple is asking the court to overturn the jury’s verdict, rule that Taction is entitled to no damages, and find that Apple did not infringe the (possibly invalid) patents. Alternatively, the company is requesting a new trial covering infringement, patent validity, and damages.
With Apple’s motion now filed, and the jury’s verdict not yet formally entered as a final judgment, the court will now consider whether to uphold the $5.7 billion award, overturn the verdict, or order a new trial.
What’s your take on Apple’s arguments? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon