Apple ordered to pay $5.7bn after losing vibration tech patent suit

Read the original at BBC News ↗
Cite

McMahon, L. (2026, September 28). Apple ordered to pay $5.7bn after losing vibration tech patent suit. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6je85n2vyleo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

BBC News · collected 2026-09-28 · by Liv McMahon

Quick Summary

A US jury ruled that Apple must pay Taction Technology $5.7 billion in damages for infringing on two of its patents related to haptics systems used in devices like the iPhone and Apple Watch. The lawsuit, filed by Taction in 2021, claims that Apple's Taptic Engine technology infringes upon their patents issued in 2020. Despite a previous ruling in 2023 dismissing the case, an appeal led to this recent verdict. Apple plans to appeal the decision, asserting that its Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-09-28, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

On September 26, 2026, a US jury ruled that Apple must pay San Diego-based Taction Technology more than $5.7 billion for using its patented technology in the haptic feedback systems of iPhones and Apple Watches. The jury determined that Apple’s Taptic Engine infringed on two Taction patents. Despite Apple's assertion that their technology is fundamentally different from Taction’s, which was tested during trial by Taction itself, Taction attorney Lance Yang expressed satisfaction with the verdict, stating it vindicated Taction’s patent rights. The case initially began in 2021 when Taction filed a lawsuit against Apple, and despite an initial ruling in 2023 dismissing infringement claims, a federal appeal court revived the case last year. Apple announced they would appeal this decision, which is currently the largest such verdict in US history.

Written for “Apple Patent Loss Judgment” on 2026-10-16, grounded in this article and the 2 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Apple Patent Loss Judgment
Technology · 3 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 0% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Al Jazeera · 0.90 cosine similarity
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 15 📰 publisher trust 60
“Both articles describe Apple being ordered to pay $5.7bn in damages for infringing on Taction Technology's patents related to haptic feedback, specifically occurring at the same time and place.”
New York Post
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 10 📰 publisher trust 67
“Both articles describe the exact same legal ruling against Apple by a US jury, ordering $5.7 billion in damages for patent infringement involving haptic feedback technology.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
20
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
0%
0 of 20 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
72/100
BBC News's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
3
Technology
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-28 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

BBC News · 3535 article(s) · 3 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 3 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Liv McMahon
8 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 In a statement given to news outlets including CNBC, external, the company said it had not used Taction's vibration tech and would appeal the verdict.
🔮 In October, Robin Williams' daughter asked fans to stop sending fake AI-generated videos of her father.
🔮 The models it tested were granted access to the internet, and the AISI also disabled in-built filters that would usually block dangerous cyber-attacks.
🔮 Thursday's ruling is in addition to $375m in fines Meta was already ordered to pay in the case, for a total of $942m. Judge Biedscheid compared Meta to a factory, with advertising and content as its product and "the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children to be the pollution that must be abated". A spokesman for Meta, which owns and operates Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and Threads, said Thursday: "We disagree with the ruling and will appeal."
🔮 Meta also said it will publish more information on the incident "once we have all the facts."
🔮 Its premium Series X console with a disc drive will now cost £670, when it previously retailed for £500.
🔮 The government said it would not comment on legal proceedings or what it called "operational matters".
🔮 - Published Brits going on holiday abroad this summer have been warned to watch out for dangerous travel adaptors, after an investigation suggested thousands may be for sale online.
Also by Liv McMahon
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 8 articles by Liv McMahon →

Topics

Apple Taction Taction Technology Taptic Engine iPhone

Subjects

Apple ORG · 12× Taction ORG · 7× CNBC ORG · 1× Masimo ORG · 1× San Diego GPE · 1× Taction Technology ORG · 1× external ORG · 1× the Southern District of California GPE · 1× the US District Court ORG · 1×

Narrative

However, an appeal was subsequently taken up by a federal appeal circuit - resulting in a September jury trial at the US District Court for the Southern District of California which found in its favour.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-28
🔮 In a statement given to news outlets including CNBC, external, the company said it had not used Taction's vibration tech and would appeal the verdict.
2026-09-28 · BBC News
Apple ordered to pay $5.7bn after losing vibration tech patent suit · assertive framing

Claims (20 extracted, 0 hedged)

- Published Apple has been ordered to pay $5.7bn (£4.3bn) in damages after a US jury found it had used another firm's tech without permission. asserted
it → publish → permission
Audio firm Taction Technology claimed in 2021 that Apple had infringed two of its patents for haptics systems, which enable vibrations for actions such as receiving a message or pressing a button. asserted
which → claim → button
This tech is built into devices like the iPhone and Apple Watch. asserted
tech → build → iPhone
Apple has been approached for comment. asserted
Apple → approach → comment
In a statement given to news outlets including CNBC, external, the company said it had not used Taction's vibration tech and would appeal the verdict. asserted
it → give → verdict
"While we thank the jury for their consideration, we strongly disagree with today's verdict and the damages awarded, which are entirely unsupported by the facts," Apple said. asserted
Apple → thank → facts
"Apple's Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction's technology, which Taction's own testing of Apple's products confirmed during trial. asserted
testing → confirm → trial
Haptics allow people to interact with devices by simulating the sense of touch or feel through vibrations. asserted
people → allow → vibrations
They have become a hallmark of modern devices, with smartphones, watches and video game controllers among those containing small motors that move in response to specific electronic signals. asserted
that → become → signals
Apple's "Taptic Engine" system - enabling haptic feedback in its devices - first debuted with the Apple Watch in 2014. asserted
system → enable → 2014
Since then, it has improved its underlying system, and with that expanded haptics in its devices. asserted
haptics → improve → devices
Taction, which makes headphones and gaming headsets, claimed in 2021 that these improvements infringed patents it was issued in 2020. asserted
it → make → 2020
It wrote in its complaint, external that by producing better haptic vibrations in its devices, Apple had been able to improve its overall user experience. asserted
Apple → write → experience
As such, the tech giant had been "capitalising on Taction's innovation and success by selling devices that infringe [its] patents", Taction said. asserted
Taction → capitalise → patents
It also accused Apple of using its inventions "without license or authority". asserted
It → accuse → license
A San Diego judge ruled in 2023 that Apple did not infringe upon Taction's patents. asserted
Apple → rule → patents
However, an appeal was subsequently taken up by a federal appeal circuit - resulting in a September jury trial at the US District Court for the Southern District of California which found in its favour. asserted
which → take → favour
In Friday's verdict, external, jurors did not find that Apple had infringed the patents in question willingly. asserted
Apple → find → question
It marks one of many similar lawsuits the tech giant has defended itself against in recent years. asserted
giant → mark → years
In November 2025 a judge ordered Apple to pay $634m, external to medical tech firm Masimo after a jury found it had infringed a patent for blood-oxygen reading tech. asserted
it → order → tech
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support