A new filing suggests that not only does Apple not infringe Taction’s patents, but the jury arrived at a record $5.7 billion in damages “based on conjecture” and should be dismissed.
In April 2021, Taction Technology sued Apple for allegedly infringing two Taction patents related to haptic feedback. He claimed that Apple’s Taptic Engine used in the Apple Watch was a reverse engineered copy of the technology.
A jury ruled in Taction’s favor in September, finding that Apple had violated the law, even if unintentionally. A new statement from Apple on Tuesday says that not only did the jury award damages based on guesswork, but that the findings themselves are contradictory.
The $5.7 billion fine sets a patent law record of more than $3 billion. Taction did not set that rate, but instead asked the jury to “award a reasonable royalty that you deem appropriate.”
Apple’s claims and request
Since the jury was not provided with the material to formulate the damages award, it appears that they arrived at that figure by guesswork. This goes against precedent and jurisprudence “does not require compensation for damages if they are not proven”.
Beyond that, Apple claims that its Taptic Engine is demonstrably different from Taction’s patented technologies. It is claimed that the tests carried out to prove Apple’s guilt actually proved the opposite.
The patent covers the highly damped output of the transducer while Apple’s is based on resonance which is not damped at all. Despite these obvious differences, the jury found Apple guilty of patent infringement.
Apple claims there are three reasons why the claims are invalid:
- First, any juror who accepts Dr. Oliver’s test must discover that there are at least two methods for measuring “highly damped output” that produce opposite results, rendering the claims undefined.
- Second, on Taction’s reading, the claims involve technology that the patents never describe, and the basic knowledge of a skilled craftsman cannot fill this gap.
- Third, the specifications do not allow a skilled craftsman to make or use the Apple controller.
Basically, by deeming Dr. Oliver’s tests to be accurate in determining the case, they contradict the verdict itself. Apple argues that Taction reads the patent one way to determine infringement, then reads it another way to determine invalidity.
Apple wants the court to issue a ruling as a matter of law that Taction is not entitled to any compensation, that Apple is not infringing the asserted claims, and that the asserted claims are invalid. If not, Apple wants a new trial on infringement, invalidity and damages to determine whether damages are owed and how much they should actually be.
As with any lawsuit Apple finds itself in, there will undoubtedly be more appeals until a resolution is reached.
