Story perspectives

Apple Ordered to Pay $5.7 Billion Patent Damages

By Drooid · Sep 26, 2026, 10:10 PM UTC · How we work

Summary

Apple Ordered $5.7B

Apple Inc. was ordered by a San Diego federal jury to pay over $5.7 billion for patent infringement.
The verdict, issued September 26, 2026, is the largest U.S. patent infringement award in history.
The jury found Apple’s Taptic Engine infringed Taction Technology patents US 10,659,885 and US 10,820,117.
Apple announced it will appeal, arguing its Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology.
The infringement was deemed non-willful, so no punitive damages were imposed.

Summary

Robinson Oversees Motions

Judge Todd W. Robinson will oversee motions to challenge the $5.7 billion award after the verdict.
Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP tied to Burford Capital financed Taction’s case.
Because jurors found infringement non-willful, Taction cannot pursue statutory three-fold enhanced damages.
The Federal Circuit revived Taction’s claims in August 2025 after overturning a 2023 summary-judgment dismissal.
The appellate court ruled the district judge erred by excluding Taction’s technical expert testimony.

History

Historical Context

Judge Lucy Koh’s 2012 ruling that Samsung pay Apple about $1.05 billion for smartphone patent infringement marked a key moment in the smartphone patent wars sparked by Apple’s 2011 lawsuits. The 2026 San Diego jury’s $5.7 billion verdict against Apple for Taptic Engine patents shows courts still levy multi-billion awards, driving tech firms to boost litigation budgets and draw investors like Burford Capital.

1 of 3

Apple Ordered $5.7B

Apple Inc. was ordered by a San Diego federal jury to pay over $5.7 billion for patent infringement.
The verdict, issued September 26, 2026, is the largest U.S. patent infringement award in history.
The jury found Apple’s Taptic Engine infringed Taction Technology patents US 10,659,885 and US 10,820,117.
Apple announced it will appeal, arguing its Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology.
The infringement was deemed non-willful, so no punitive damages were imposed.

1 / 3