Apple is asking a federal judge to overturn a $5.7 billion judgment in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Taction Technology over the Taptic Engine used in iPhones and Apple Watches. Here are the details.
‘Inadmissible guesswork on a massive scale’
A few weeks ago, a jury ordered Apple to pay $5.7 billion for infringing two Taction Technology patents related to the Taptic Engine that currently powers haptic feedback on its devices.
At the time, Apple said it strongly disagreed with the jury’s verdict and damages award, which it called “completely unsupported by the facts.”
Apple stressed that its technology was “fundamentally different” from that 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 did not present enough evidence to support any damages, let alone $5.7 billion, which the company noted is “the largest patent verdict in history, at more than $3 billion.”
Apple added that before trial, the court excluded Taction’s damages expert’s analysis due to flaws in how the expert calculated royalties from a previous license agreement, and that the expert was later excluded from testifying entirely.
Apple also noted that Taction never presented evidence to establish how much its patented technology was worth. Instead, it merely asked jurors to award whatever they deemed a reasonable royalty, leaving them “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 you all think is appropriate.” […] The prosecution failed to meet its burden of presenting evidence that would allow the jury to “attach an adequate dollar amount to the acts of infringement,” […]. Without 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 the attorney that he was “not sure that the figure that appears on the verdict form is what the jury intended to convey,” questioning whether the $5.7 billion figure was what the jury actually thought.
In a more striking allegation, 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 multiple frequencies. Apple argues that its Taptic Engine works differently, producing much stronger vibrations at certain frequencies than at others.
The company continues to claim that Dr.
From the file:
No reasonable juror could find that “the output of the transducer is highly attenuated” in the accused products, as required by the court’s construction. Rather than assessing highly attenuated output using the test in the patent, Taction’s injury theory rested on a legally incorrect test devised by Dr. Oliver for this case. The only evidence of the actual output of the transducer, including Taction’s pre-registration and violation of objections, was introduced by Apple and these tests showed a height response that Dr. Oliver admitted was not highly muted.
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 determine 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, determine that Taction is not entitled to any 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 verdict, the court will now consider whether to uphold the $5.7 billion award, overturn the verdict, or order a new trial.
What do you think about Apple’s arguments? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.