// 9TO5MAC — MOBILE & WEB
Apple challenges Taction’s $5.7B patent verdict, says damages were based on ‘guesswork’
Apple is asking a federal judge to overturn a $5.7 billion verdict in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Taction Technology over the Taptic Engine used in iPhones and Apple Watches. Here are the details.
A few weeks ago, a jury ordered Apple to pay $5.7 billion for infringing two patents held by Taction Technology, which are related to the Taptic Engine that currently powers haptic feedback across its devices.
At the time, Apple said it strongly disagreed with the jury’s verdict and the damages awarded, which it called “entirely unsupported by the facts.”
Apple stressed its technology was “fundamentally different” from what is covered by Taction’s two patents, and announced plans to appeal.
Today, Apple filed 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 notes 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.”
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.