As CNBC reported, a federal jury in San Diego awarded Taction Technology more than $5.7 billion in damages, finding that Apple infringed claims from two Taction haptics patents.
As CNBC explained,
The lawsuit centered around U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, which both involve vibration-based, tactile transducer technology that helps users feel a device responding to their input. Taction argued that Apple’s “Taptic Engine,” which is embedded in its Apple Watches and iPhones, uses its inventions without proper license or authority.
Taction is a headphone and gaming headset company. It initially sued Apple in 2021.
As its complaint explains,
“Haptics” refers to the science of enabling interaction with technology through the sense of touch. Haptic feedback in electronic devices such as smartphones, smartwatches, virtual reality/game controllers, and headphones provides important sensory information to users. In many such devices, haptic feedback allows users to feel the device responding to their input, and to receive tactile accompaniment to music, dialogue, or actions occurring on a screen.
Haptic devices can also provide alerts and other information to users, from simple buzzing when a smart phone is “ringing” in silent mode to more complex signals used to indicate specific responses to inputs. Haptic feedback in these types of devices is created by electromechanical actuators—small motors enclosed in a housing or frame. A mass inside a haptic actuator vibrates in response to electric signals. High-fidelity actuators can generate different haptic sensations based on different input signals, from short, sharp taps to low-frequency rumbles
Taction claimed in its complaint that its patented inventions
are directed to ways to more accurately reproduce a wider range of signals with a haptic actuator. Taction’s approach can employ specific configurations of flexures, coils, magnets, and magnetic ferrofluid to act on the moving mass to lessen, or “damp,” undesired vibrations while also allowing the actuator to be operated efficiently.
Apple had the case dismissed by a federal district court in 2023.
As the Federal Circuit noted,
During claim construction, the district court concluded the asserted claims are limited to “transducers with highly damped output” and do not include “un-damped linear resonant actuators” based on disclaimers.
The district court had granted Apple’s summary motion on two grounds:
First, the court struck the infringement opinions of Taction’s expert, Dr. James Oliver, for the “highly damped output” limitation because his opinions contained a new theory in violation of local patent rules and improperly argued claim construction. The court then concluded that without the stricken testimony Taction had no viable claim of infringement.
Second, the district court held, even if Dr. Oliver’s infringement opinions were not struck, the accused products do not meet the “highly damped output” limitation based on its revised construction of “highly damped output.”
Taction argued on appeal that summary judgment was improper under both grounds because the district court abused its discretion by striking Dr. Oliver’s infringement opinions, and it erred in construing the asserted claims.
The Federal Circuit noted that it reviews a district court’s interpretation and enforcement of local patent rules for abuse of discretion, determining
whether (1) the decision was clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) the court’s findings were clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence upon which the court rationally could have based its decision.
The court agreed with Taction that the district court had abused its discretion in excluding the expert’s testimony.
After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling of noninfringement, the case went to trial this year.
Apple has said that it plans to appeal the verdict.
Just like the haiku above, we like to keep our posts short and sweet. Hopefully, you found this bite-sized information helpful. If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact us here: https://aeonlaw.com/contact-us/.
